The World Turned Upside Down

I understand your anger; I’m also angry that the government is forcibly stealing money from me each week – so as to provide SS benefits to people I owe no obligation to!

It’s really simple: You’ve been defrauded (as has everyone else who “paid in” – that is, who had money taken from them). But just as you don’t have the moral right, if mugged, to mug the next guy who comes along to make up for your loss, neither do you have a right to reach into my pocket (using the government to do the actual taking) to make you whole.

This is the essential evil of our entire system – not just SS.

Let’s be crystal clear: What SS does is take by force money from Smith to pay Jones a benefit. Smith’s money is gone – spent. There is no account with Smith’s name on it; in order to pay future benefits to Smith, another victim – let’s call him Edwards – must be lined up and forced to hand over money (his money; money that he earned and which no one else has any moral right to) in order to pay those benefits to Smith.

Thus, we’re all reduced to mutual parasitism at gunpoint.

Meanwhile, had you been left in peace during your working life – and allowed to keep all that money that was taken from you in “contributions” – you would have a tidy retirement nest egg. Your nest egg. Morally clean. Not taken at gunpoint from your fellow man.

Ah, Lee is ahead of the pack…Leaving the USSA!!

I envy you…if you care to share any words of advice, please post them over at my blog detailing our adventure…moving out of the USA…. http://lifethedestination.blogspot.com/

Hi Kathy,

This is a horrible story; I’m sorry you had to go through all of this. And your points about the system are spot on. I agree with you that one of the worst aspects is the way they impoverish us, directly (via the “contributions”) and indirectly (via the needlessly hiked-up costs of things like medicine etc. that happen as a result of the bureaucracy, waste and fraud. I also agree that you’re not in the same class as the “maggots” who are looking to game the system because your intentions are honorable. Still – and I know this is not going to be what you want to hear – SS benefits are the result of threatening your fellow men with violence and so the same thing as any other type of transfer payment, even though your intentions are honorable. You were robbed – just like every other person who has been forced to “contribute” to SS. Your money is as gone as the money a street thug took from his last victim. Does your misfortune (does anyone’s misfortune) give them the moral right to use force (via the government or otherwise) to victimize some other person in order to make up for their loss? I don’t see how it does.

There is a great deal of real need out there; people who are suffering through no fault of theirs – bad luck or bad times. It is right to feel empathy; wonderful to want to want to help. But is it right to use force against others – to threaten to put them in a cage, to take their rightful property, to direct possibly lethal violence against them – in order to to compel them to help or punish them if they decline to help?

I don’t see how it can ever be.

Moreover, once you make an exception – once using force to “help” another for any reason is accepted – a precedent has been established – and the principle accepted. And once that happens, we eventually get to where we are now, the full-bloom transfer state, with each of us using the force of the state to feed off our neighbors and make them do “x” because we think it’s good or safe or efficient, etc. It is no longer possible to draw a line in the sand and say this far and no farther. After all, “need” is open-ended and impossible to objectively define. But rights are possible to objectively define – and defend. If we want to define and defend them. It really is an either-or situation. Either you believe that is never morally permissible to threaten other people with violence who have done you no wrong – or you don’t. If you do, then you have every right to resent those who would use force. And if you don’t, the you no longer have any moral basis for resenting threats directed against you.

I don’t want a society based on violence – and I’d like to be in a position to argue against it, without being accused of hypocrisy – and that is why I tell it like it us about SS, even though I know a great many people do not want to hear what I have to say.

There is no free trade. What is called free trade is neither free trade nor libertarian. It is managed trade. Trade managed for the purpose of dismantling the USA’s manufacturing base and the benefit of those doing the management and who they do it for.

Also a libertarian world would not have the conditions that make China and other nations so cheap to make things in, that is the government created conditions that allow for exploitation of people by running roughshod over their rights.

Sure, they would still have cheap labor but it would be in proportion to their productivity. Americans would be more productive and automation would preserve higher paying US based manufacturing. Sure it would be fewer people per factory, per unit of production, but with a true free market capitalism environment there would be a lot more businesses and a lot more factories to make up for it.

But instead of free market, the USA went fascist, corporatist, crony capitalist. Competition is restricted. Who can be certain businesses is restricted. There are high barriers to entry. Licenses. approval from government, etc and so on. Can’t even sell ice cream made in your kitchen with fresh ingredients these days. Hot dog cart? Nope. Laws against selling any place near where someone else has a spot or restaurant. Manufacturing business? well ask Mr. Melon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM

So what killed the economy? The people who have power. There wasn’t any free market to begin with, so it’s not the cause. The unfree market is.

Oh, I forget… what about the real world where China is still unfair to its people and so on? Well I believe the USA can beat China. I’ve seen many vendors do so. But conditions in the USA often prevent it. Fixed costs of taxes, regulatory issues, and so on. Labor costs can be solved with capital equipment. New businesses and innovation can replace those where low skill labor cost dominate and are lost to overseas. But we can’t have that because if you want a new business these days you better get friends in government… otherwise government has given your competitor a big fat loan or grant. Or maybe sees you as a target to extract wealth from. Or your competitor has a law passed to put you out of business. So people stop bothering to try. The nation becomes poorer.

So it goes.

Someday maybe there will be a place where a free market is tried.

Great post, Clint! In fact, Post o’ the Day!

Welcome to the site, by the way – good to have you with us.

John, the root issue is that no one other than you, has a right to the fruits of your labor. When someone becomes a ward of the state, then they are violating our rights by accepting property that was taken from us under duress. Once they’ve crossed that line, then they forfeit their own rights. In other words, terms and conditions now apply. If you don’t like said terms and conditions, don’t get in the system.

I understand the judge’s 4th Amendment argument and if these were just people walking down the street, minding their own business and the DEA started doing random urinalysis she’d be quite right. The problem is these parasites are being given preferential treatment. Then those of us that are still productive are supposed to cower down, tuck our tails and lick the hands of those that would oppress us to keep our jobs. At one utility I worked for, they did indeed have a policy to turn you over to the sheriff’s department if you tested positive in a random urinalysis. Needless to say, you were terminated as well. But no one forced you to take the job in the first place. And no one is forcing these people onto the dole.

I was just thinking the exact same thing. I work hard for my money, if I fail a drug test I’m terminated. Yet, according to Nick, it’s okay if the maggots do drugs on our dime. Get real!

Yup. It’s amazing that Nick or anyone else would take umbrage at someone receiving taxpayer dollars being subject to “terms and conditions” as the price of receiving those dollars. If Nick has a teenaged kid, I doubt he would just give the kid a car with no conditions, or before the kid met some conditions first.

Is this somewhat degrading for the recipient of taxpayer dollars? Hell yes. And it should be. People should only be receiving assistance as an absolute last resort – and be eager to get off assistance as soon as possible. A little inducement is no bad thing, sez me.

The real issue is that we’re attempting to pick up one of the enemy’s weapons and use it against them. The state has declared war on inanimate chemical compounds and by extension us, not for our health and safety, that’s a facade. The real issue is for the state’s nosey busy-bodies to be able to search our vehicles, review our bank records, listen to our phone calls, confiscate our property, deny us jobs and even lock us in a cage with impunity. After they run you through the mill, you’ve lost the right to keep and bear arms (to vote too, but that’s less important). Once you been “processed” you’re less than a citizen.

Welfare, as well as all public largesse, recipients are a useful voting bloc. If you catch them with dope, they get “processed” and they no longer vote. Furthermore, many will drop off the dole rather than give up the dope; more voters gone. Worse yet, the department of socialist services will have fewer “clients”, which means smaller buildings, less budget money and fewer employees. Their own weapon really would work against them and they can’t have that.

BureaucRATs are always worried that the paying members of society will figure out that we don’t need them. So they have to give their “clients” incentives to stay in the system and keep their case load high or they may have to find a new job.

So let’s put this in perspective: the people of Florida want to cut their tax bill by weeding out the parasites on public assistance. The judge disagrees with the people of Florida and decides that putting conditions on public assistance violates the “rights” of the recipients. I guess she doesn’t understand that rights are limited to those things that we can do without incurring involuntarily costs to our neighbors. So much for “democracy”.

You’d be surprised as to the people I see using link cards (Illinois’ newest version of food stamps) these days.

You’re right. The real problem is the redistributionist policies themselves. If John is not robbed to “help” Paul, then John has no business (or right) to pester Paul about what he does with his money. The problem – the natural resentment – arises when John is robbed to “help” Paul and then finds out that Paul is spending his (that is, John’s) money on “x” or “y.” Whether it’s drugs or pizza or a lawnmower – doesn’t matter. The point is that Paul is spending someone else’s money; money he has no moral right to – and John is rightfully indignant.

I’m sorry, but you’re just not making any sense. Maybe others will chime in?

Is this a cage fight?

I’ve said repeatedly that I oppose the idea of using the state’s police power to take from Smith to give to Jones; that Smith has every right to be upset about it – and to resent what Jones does with Smith’s money. You seem to have trouble grasping this elementary Libertarian principle – without which Libertarianism is meaningless.

On the “maggot” stuff and Hitler comparison:

So, let’s see… I’m a mass murderer of innocent people because I object to people who take what’s not theirs and then object when I object to what they do with my money.

Whatever you are, man, you are not a Libertarian!

Nicholas

YOU SIR ARE A THIEF!!!! ADVOCATING AND JUSTIFYING HI LEVEL THEFT!!! YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM AND NOT THE SOLUTION!!!

I think the person you’re dealing with (nick) , just likes to argue! Seems to me he’s a waste of oxygen!

My quoting anyone is not the issue, Nick.

Neither is the issue forced drug testing – as such. The issue is forcible transfer payments; the taking of Smith’s rightful property in order to give it to Jones. This is what I oppose. It merely adds insult to injury, having had one’s rightful property taken by force, to discover that property has been used to fund the recipient’s drug habit. The welfare recipient’s business becomes my business the moment he sticks his hands in my pocket.

I’ll quote Jefferson, who said (words to the effect) that to compel a man to furnish money for the propagation of ideas he abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

Just so.

Or, put in plainer language: I don’t give a damn what you do, so long as it’s not on my nickle.

I don’t want to test or control or even pester any free man. But one is no longer free when one accept the property of another, taken from him by force.

It got a little heated!

I think the main thing here that Nick’s missing – or overstepping, I should say – is that the problems we’ve been arguing about, including the animosity between people, goes away if force is taken out of the equation. Helping someone else because you want to is ennobling; it makes you feel good, especially when you know the person (or their situation). But when you’re threatened with violence, you (naturally, in my opinion) get angry and resentful, not just toward the agency doing the bully work but toward the recipient(s), too.

Nick may not believe this, but I hold no ill will toward my fellow man. I passionately defend his (and my) right to be left alone, unless we somehow violate the rights of others. I (we, my wife and I) help our neighbors – and do so happily. But I’d feel very differently if I were forced to help them, as I suspect (or hope) Nick would also.

I would never seek to control what anyone does with their body, their money, their time, etc. – provided they’re not causing harm to anyone else.

Nick is mad that I am angry about welfare recipients objecting to drug testing and claims I am a hypocrite because I don’t object to conditions being attached to welfare. What I really object to is government policies that put us both (the welfare recipient and us – taxpayers) in this awful position, that leads to mutual antagonism and, ultimately, dehumanizes us all.

I apologize for the overheated rhetoric, Nick – but I hope the above helps you understand where I’m coming from.

Historical references that are apt should be and will be used, even if you find them tedious, Richard. I also referred to Stalin and Castro, which you do not mention. Who do the quotes insult? The person who uses exactly the same term in the same way? Apparently you do not think it insulting to refer to recipients of government checks — which is to say most Americans — as maggots since you did not say you do.

There is no “non-aggression” in having the state impose drug tests on anyone. Government-imposed drug testing is naked violence, and you, Eric, desire to see that violence used against people have committed no crime in the sense that a libertarian would define crime.

You have provided no guideline for who loses his liberty due to accepting government money. As I’ve said, this applies to most Americans, and show no unwillingness to define any limits to this drug testing. Should SS recipients be subject to drug tests? Farmers who receive crop subsidies? Bank execs who receive bailouts? Workers for companies with government contracts?

Any why stop at drug tests? Shouldn’t recipients of government largess be subject to other controls and surveillance? Draw a line where it is clear who loses his rights, and for what? Should adults who have children on welfare be subject to forced sterilization? Mandatory abortion?

I don’t have the slightest animosity or heat, as you put it. I’m quite calmly questioning your willingness to strip citizens of their rights and empower the state to push forward with violent intrusions in the name of the war on drugs. I’ve never encountered someone who claimed on one had to be a radical libertarian, while on the other hand supported forced drug tests of people not charged with crimes. Your rationale is apparently that people (all? some?) who accept government money are guilty of crimes against morality and humanity.

Nick, I responded to each one… what did I neglect?

Is there anything wrong with having contempt for thieves? Parasites? Irresponsible people? People who believe they have a right to use force to compel other people to “help” them?

Would you refrain from being impolite to a street thug threatening you with violence? Would you regard it as bad form to refer to him using certain terms after the fact?

Really?

How, exactly, am I statist for advocating non-aggression? For defending the right of us all to be free from the threat of physical violence merely for wishing to be left in peace? For advocating voluntarism and cooperation; free exchange – rather than coercion and violence?

This is perhaps the most bizarre argument I’ve ever come across!

I’m not trying to be mean – or flip.

I am trying to defend a moral principle.

This does not mean I don’t have sympathy for people in need; it does mean I reject the idea that they have a right to threaten me with violence in order to ameliorate their suffering. Etc.

You turn the whole thing upside down. You accuse me of being a statist for being angry that my rightful property is being taken away from me against my will to help provide material benefits to total strangers – and chide me for being even angrier that my money may be used to provide things like drugs to these random strangers.

I pointed out that I want the state to restrict its activities to the maintenance of order via the rule of law (protecting people from aggression and fraud, etc.) but I’m somehow essentially a socialist (or worse, a Nazi) because I get pissed not only that my money is taken from me but that it often ends up being used to feed some moocher’s drug habit – or reproductive habits.

Odd stuff!

Actually Nicolas, Eric has responded to you point for point. You, having some absurd “axe to grind”, choose to ignore what he’s attempting to impart to you. You are almost certainly of the Gil and Clover ilk (although considerably more literate and articulate than the former).

Part of liberty is free speech. Free speech (or rather the free exchange of ideas) is often offensive to many people. The truth is also offensive to some, but that does not make it a falsehood. You can say anything you like about me, my wife, even my mother and I will defend your right to do so. I might find it offensive and choose to walk away. As long as you don’t try to physically stop me, we’ll be okay.

Eric chooses to describe social parasites as maggots. So what? I disagree with him. I think he’s being too generous. Then again, I’ve had to stand in line behind their fat, dolled up asses in the grocery store, buying food I couldn’t afford, with money I earned, for about eight years longer than he has. That could have something to do with my outlook, dontcha think? (Apparently not)

Exactly what branch of government did you say you were “employed” by?

Oh, dear…I’m afraid we have a Godwin’s Rule violation.
The thread shall end now.

Nick it seems the body of your objection centers around the label “maggot”, and its dehumanizing and collectivizing implications. Then what DOES one call people who behave like parasites, very consciously and willingly?

We’re all losing sight of another key point:
Why is the 4th amendment so well-protected in this case, when it’s so blithely ignored in every other sphere?

Raise your hands if you’re familiar with the Cloward-Piven strategy.

Ah yes, out comes the Hitler / Racist / Fill in the blank Metaphor….Emote much?

“you enthusiastically support the right of the state to strip them of their humanity and rights.”

Oh fer Christ sakes….News flash sparky, WELFARE/ PUBLIC ASSITANCE is not a “RIGHT”, it is an entitlement, given via government fiat, taken from those who produce a tangible output and given to those that don’t. It is that simple. What part of this don’t you understand? These people have no more RIGHT to mine or yours or anyone’s earnings then they do to the crown jewels.

I would submit to you the following, but you seem akin to arguing with an old tree stump, seeking to make it once again grow into a mighty oak, so I fear to waste valuable bandwidth on you but so be it.

The state strips no one of their so called “humanity”. Those on the public dole have for the majority of them already and in most cases WILLINGLY and KNOWINGLY conceded their humanity to the devil (state) mostly by being willing for whatever reason to belly up to the public feeding trough.

I’m reminded of the well documented case of the grandmother who instructed her grand daughter to have another child, so that she could adopt yet another “child in need” solely for the purpose of gaining yet more money each month for her personal gain. She told this child she was the “breadwinner” of the family. Where is the humanity in that? We’re producing a society of baby factories now? There are laws against puppy factories in almost all 50 states, yet no laws against this sort of outrage?

So tell me again, Who’s stripping who of their humanity sir? The state? Me? The author of this blog? I think not. They do it to themselves. As I said a majority of these people have already sold their humanity for the promise of some government checks and cheese.

Call them maggots, leeches, slackers, lazy, it matters not. Their humanity left the building long ago. It is what it is, and in most cases the titles are not only deserved, but very much warranted.

When you reach such a station in life where you can or will not provide for yourself, unless in the cases of overwhelming catastrophic illness or infirmary, you have in fact “sold your soul to the devil” the devil being the state. You sold your very humanity, the freedom of it’s essence long before the “state” had any chance to strip you of it, and hence you’ve now arrived at this junction in a wholly miserable existence

50 years of a war on poverty and “the great social experiment” illustrates this point quite clearly, it has produced next to nothing.

Granted, There are a smattering of examples out there; Cinderella stories of the “poor and downtrodden” rising to the challenges of life, embracing the essence of it and succeeding beyond their wildest dreams, reclaiming their very humanity and freedom from the slavery of the state, I grant that point.

But the proof is there, look around you, the overwhelming status of those that have given up their humanity to become mindless drones of the welfare state is one of sloth, ignorance greed, selfishness, and dishonor.

I don’t feel disdain, or hate for these souls, I feel sad mostly because they simply for whatever reason cannot see that life is what you make of it, life is fleeting and should be lived, not just experienced. They do not live. They exist. They die, they leave no legacy, they live no lasting impressions, the simply like a candle, extinguish.

Perhaps “maggot” is overarching in it’s reach.

Maybe it’s too harsh to call a fellow man a maggot, I grant the point. But be that as it may, again, 50+ years of trying to raise people up, to lift them from the chains they seem so willing to shackle themselves with by ceding their humanity to the all giving state, the siren call of drugs, or whatever myriad of reasons they can come up with to justify their existence ..has failed. What do we call them then? Pillars of humanity? Great examples for our children to emulate? I think not.

Hi Don,

Yup.

I have no issue with drugs – as such – “legal” or otherwise. If a person wishes to grow/smoke pot (as an example) on his own land, in his own home, then it is none of my business or yours – or the government’s.

Right? I think (I hope) we agree. Also that Nick agrees.

The moral (and legal-criminal) problem arises when a person’s actions violate the rights of others. A person does not have the right to grow pot on my land if I did not give him permission to do so. He does not have the right to smoke pot in my house, if I did not give him permission. More broadly, a person does not have the right to a government check – that is, to money that was taken by force from others who owe him nothing (beyond goodwill and “live and let live”). He certainly does not have the right to take that money and go buy pot with it.

You’re absolutely right that welfare (and so on) has morphed into an atrocity. One can perhaps make an argument for some sort of program that provides aid to people who are through no fault of their own temporarily down on their luck, etc. But as everyone knows, we have legions of people who have been on the dole their entire lives; who breed hordes of children they can’t afford (because Uncle will pay) and who have no intention whatever of ever giving it up. I call these creatures maggots because that’s what they are.

It’s not hypocrisy when they are taking my money!

With my money comes my conditions.

Do you really think some maggot moocher living off my money has the right to use drugs purchased with my money, no questions asked?? Fuck that! I see these maggots (with dey keey-uds, usually, too) at the store all the damn time buying food I can’t afford because of the taxes I have to pay – to “help” these bastards eat better food than I can afford. Now you want me to look the other way when they buy a bag of dope (or booze or whatever) so they can “relax” – on my nickle! – and watch Beavis & Butthead? Seriously?

Do you consider it a violation of a renter’s rights when a landlord sets forth conditions for living in his rental unit? The renter is free to not rent from that landlord – just as a person on the government dole is free to decline the “benefits” he is being given (at the expense of his victim – no, victims) if he does not like the terms and conditions.

Of course, I’d rather that no individual be able to use the police power of the state to force me (and you) to “help” him at gunpoint. And then, of course, I’d support that person’s right to be left the hell alone – including left alone from having to take a drug test.

The “slippery slope” is not rejecting out of hand any form of coercive transfer payment, which does indeed turn us into maggots – literally. A maggot is a creature that feeds off another.

You’re absolutely right that anyone who accepts “help” from the government – that is, from his fellow men, against their will, at gunpoint – has no business espousing Libertarianism.

Nicolas, you can’t possibly be this stupid. C’mon. I had to submit to a drug test in order to get my job, which “entitled” me to the “privilege” of helping provide for these parasites you seem to consider disenfranchised and vulnerable. That being the case, I can at least expect the recipients of the fruits of my labor (not their own) to meet the same requirements imposed on me to obtain the means to provide for them. You’re damned right they own their own bodies and as Eric correctly pointed out they are more than entitled to “privacy” as long as they aren’t asking for my wallet (which they aren’t entitled to do anyway).It is only by virtue of government force and coercion these tax-feeders can get away with stealing from the rest of us.

Here’s how it works Nicolas: One of my coworkers came home from fishing. An attractive young woman in her mid-twenties from the Section 8 housing (welfare housing, in case you’re sheltered) down the street approached him. She wanted to know if he’d like to buy some groceries for fifty cents on the dollar. He asked her how that works. She said her EBT card (the modern equivalent to food stamps to prevent fraud) had just been recharged and she’d be happy to go with him to Wal-Mart and buy whatever groceries he wanted for half the value in cash. To his credit, he told her she should give him the groceries and some cash on top of it, since he’d already paid for them oncee! She got pissed and stomped off. Imagine that!

So what do you reckon she was going to do with that money Nicolas? Send it to a charity in India? If I were a gambling man, I’d put my money on…..a bag of pot, some beer and a carton of cigarettes. You know what, if you’re truly needy you’ll buy food. You won’t ask one of the people that provided your food to buy it back from you.

So let’s put this in perspective: I go to work. I do my job, I do it well and everyone likes my work. I take the money and buy a substance that the government arbitrarily determines to be illegal and consume it. No one knows except me. My employer makes me pee in a cup which I agreed to when I took the job. I test positive and they fire me, thereby depriving me of my livelihood. That’s not an invasion of my privacy even though I didn’t do it on company time or on their property? Do you think you can follow this to its logical conclusion?

On the other hand, we have a woman on welfare taking money she didn’t work for, having children she can’t afford, selling the food we’re giving her at a substantial loss and buying who knows what with the money. But we can’t make her submit to a drug test as a condition of receiving our stolen property because it would invade her privacy? Are you daft or what?

I agree some people are hapless and unaware; but there are also millions of (yes) maggots. Feeders and parasites. You know this is true. People who believe they are entitled to live off others; that they have a “right” to health care, a job, Social Security – etc. I call them what they are.

The starting point of our moral renewal must be acceptance of the moral principle that none of us has the right to force others to provide them material benefits. Do you disagree?

You write:

“It is absurd and dishonest to suggest that people who receive government paychecks are using government force.”

In what way? Is it not a fact that the money which finances these benefits is provided by the explicit threat of force and violence? Am I misinformed? If I decline to “contribute” and pay my “fair share” what will the consequences be? A polite demurral? Or will men with uniforms and guns come to my home? You tell me…

If this makes me a poseur/hypocrite – well, I’m baffled.

Yes, I use the roads – paid for with motor fuels excise taxes, which I freely (and abundantly) pay.

I don’t collect SS or any other form of government dole. And I never will. I’ve taken steps to assure our financial solvency on my own nickle. We own our place – the only “payment” we have is the annual “rent” (property tax) that (once again) we’re compelled to pay at the point of a gun.

I’m sorry that my candid and blunt talk has annoyed you, but the reality of our system is much uglier than my mere words.

Gosh Nicolas, the gubmint boys are hiring a little better class of prick these days. Unlike Gil, you seem reasonably intelligent. Misguided, but intelligent nonetheless.

Okay. First of all social security (more aptly termed socialist slavery) is indeed a Ponzi scheme as you appear aware of. As I have pointed out to my parents, I want them to use it, every dime they can get and Medicare too. Because my dad has paid in since WW II and the “maggots” in government misappropriated it and spent it on things that it was never intended for. I also know it won’t be there when I reach retirement age (or the money will have been inflated to the point that the value of it will be a pitance). I’ve had good jobs since I got out of the military in 1981 and paid in the maximum to SS nearly every year since. I’m paying for my parents, not putting it away for my future because it’s already been spent by the crooks in D.C. Any questions?

Do I think my parents are “maggots”? Of course not, they were duped into participating in a system all their working lives designed to put all of us on the government plantation. People who defraud the system and those who refuse to enforce fraud laws against them are indeed “maggots” or actually much worse, since maggots operate purely on instinct. Those who defraud the system and the SS administrators the allow it to happen know what they’re doing.

So, let’s qualify those who might be “maggots”: I had a neighbor for nearly eight years that has been on SSDI from the time he was 23 years old until now. He “hurt his back” as a bag boy in a grocery store. At 31 years old he was able to climb a tree with a running chainsaw, operate an ATV, a bulldozer, a tractor, a track loader and even mow a five acre field with a push mower (Meth’s amazing isn’t it?). He was also able to steal gasoline out of my shed, pipe and angle iron off my utitlity trailer and stalk my wife when I was on the road working to help pay his way. Apparently a good sized portion of my earnings wasn’t enough.

He had a group of friends that worked with him….buying pseudo-ephedrine at the local convenience stores and cooking meth. He was also growing a pretty good dope crop every year. Now I don’t believe in the criminalizaion of drugs. But if someone is manufacturing and selling drugs, then we shouldn’t be expected to give them a chunk of our paycheck to pay their way and to buy the 30 acres they’re living on! (That’s right, his SSDI check went to pay for the land he’d bought. That should make you feel better.)

Here’s the kicker: When I contacted the Social Security Administration about this and told them I had videotaped evidence of fraud, they informed me there was nothing they could do. They claimed they didn’t have the money or manpower to enforce the fraud laws. Of course they didn’t bother to mention that the size fo their office buildings, budget and manning are based on the number of “clients” they “serve”. Hmmm.

So, I will agree with you that people like that aren’t maggots. Atually, scumbags like that are far worse than maggots, because maggots actually clean up decaying flesh and feces. A parasite of this type lives off the productivity of his fellow countrymen by virtue of the threat of government force at the expense of those that have previously paid in. Otherwise, no one in their right mind would hand their money over to the likes of him.

So Nicolas, let’s get this out of the way right now. What do you do for a living?

At any given point in time there will always be some people who are in need of charity for various reasons. No one in his right mind would challenge that assumption. A major problem arose, however, when government programs overshadowed formerly privately run and financed charities with a bureaucratized top down entitlement system. The old time tested tie between visible improvements in personal behavior and help issued in different forms was for the most part discarded as old fashioned. Any time a person accepts government money for the unearned he is really lending sanction to the moral correctness of using government as an armed agent to rob Peter to pay Paul. It makes no difference whether or not one has personally connected the intellectual dots. I’m beginning to think that the same could even be said for voting because so much of what government does involves transferring wealth using force or threat of force. In a practical sense voting sanctions government’s predatory license to steal. Welfare is bread thrown at the rabble to keep them submissive and compliant while the vault is looted by much much bigger inside players. Serious money seems to be headed upward these days to the upper one percent. The middle class is shrinking along with the economy.

The hapless who get government checks and those who think that charity by threat of the government is moral are mobilized as a group of voters to keep the status quo in power. That’s why these programs exist. to solidify power. By and large those on the receiving end have no problem with the government threatening those who do not pay with violence, but most if not all will insist that there is no violence behind it. Just watch when a rich enough ‘tax cheat’ is discovered.

If you add up everyone who gets a government check either through some form of welfare, contract (defense, construction, security, prisons, etc), or as an employee there is only a minority left that is producing the actual wealth that is taken to write all those checks.

This is not sustainable. It is going to collapse. the question is when.

Most Libertarians agree with the concept that everything should be privatised and governments(/consitutions/laws) abolished. If the market won’t do it, it’s not worth doing.

Please.

First point: If someone is using the government to force me at gunpoint to provide for their “welfare” then they are maggots in my book. Second point: Their “welfare” should indeed be conditional – if they don’t like it, then they should quit sticking their damn paws into my pockets.

I’ll defend to the utmost an individual’s right to privacy, to be free of government harassment… until he starts using the government to harass (or steal from) me or any other person.

No one has any right to live off anyone else by force – period. Being old or being sick does not confer a right to threaten others with violence to make them “help” you. Voluntary charity – helping others out of a moral desire to do so – that’s magnificent. But when you start talking about “helping” Joe by threatening Ed with guns and prison, then you have lost any moral standing in my book.

PS: I will happily renounce any future claim to SS “benefits” – which means, I don’t want someone else’s rightful property taken from them at gunpoint for my benefit.