Libertarianism and the Information Age

The current debate over social security has raised the specter of the robber baron era and the depression. In those days, the poor and the elderly suffered immensely at the hands of the economy. Many died in abject poverty after putting in decades of labor. Healthcare was largely unknown. Social security and other entitlement programs changed all that. But these programs are not solvent, they are wasteful and unpopular with those who are forced to pay for them. Politicians debate whether the fund will be solvent in 2042 or 2052 or 2062. In other words, when is the supposed crisis to begin? The problem with these predictions is that the current solvency of the social security account is a fiction. The money in that account is being used simultaneously as savings for later recipients and currently to make the books appear less unbalanced. Bush isn't talking about the latter accounting trick. Even though is makes social security look in worse shape, it also makes the Bush deficit far higher in real dollars (though admittedly the social security accounting trick was inherited, it is just more evidence that their fiscal policies have been so irresponsible). Let's put it this way, if our creditors called in our loans, then social security would be bankrupt overnight.

However, all of this is really besides the point. Social security used to rely on 1 worker supporting 3 retirees. Now the ratio is 1:42. The system is not able to accommodate this and has not been able to decades already. Nothing can fix a system that was designed around a completely different set of variables and mathematical equations, none of which any longer apply. Meanwhile, the stock market has been reliable for almost 80 years now. And lets be perfectly clear about one thing, the end of social security as we have known it is the end of the democratic party (assuming all goes well in the planned ownership society). And what is really the worst case scenario. The whole thing blows up in our faces and we end up with even more who are poor, hungry, homeless, etc. So what. If that happens, which I doubt, the conservatives and libertarians will be tossed out of office. Liberals will be restored to power, the rich will be taxed as literally no one else will have a dime and the budget will be balanced on their backs. And the rich know that this is the nightmare scenario. They can't just take their money and hide forever if they blow it.

But why are liberals so sure the ownership society is not the solution (other than to protect their vested interests)? Certainly every liberal who writes or speaks publicly on this topic is an owner himself and would have it no other way. I think there is a real fear based upon a memory of fairly recent history. While huge numbers of Americans have no health insurance, very few have no healthcare. This was quite different for many many more as recently as the early 60s. Not so long ago. And many of these folks were out of sight and thus out of mind. Uneducated, unorganized, lacking access to information, media and government. But all that has changed. In the information age, these interest groups and any evils perpetrated against them cannot be hidden for long. I think the current wide access to information and communication, plus decades of prior activism and organization, changes the landscape of the debate considerably. We are in no real threat of a country of diseased paupers as long as the internet remains free (and it is indeed beyond anyone's control; the government would collapse instantly if the internet was completely shut down). Any major error in judgment here can easily be rectified before any real damage is done. The harm from doing nothing could be far worse.

But perhaps most importantly, those of my generation did not sign this social contract and it is outrageous that we should be expected to uphold the terms of a negotiation that do not apply in the modern age. My grandparents would not have signed onto a system where my contribution must support 42 strangers to my own detriment. That was not the social contract they agreed to. In my own personal life, the taxes I have been forced to pay have kept me in perpetual debt. Working fulltime in my current field, I will probably never be able to pay my student loan debts. However taxes taken from me to pay for others retirement, money which I will likely never see, would have been more than enough to get my personal house in order. How is this fair? How does it make me more solvent and stable in my retirement? The answer is clear. It does not. Congress is the one who has broken the terms of the contract and thus it is invalid and those of my generation have no obligation to hold up our end any longer. The government does have to deal with the contract they have with current and soon to be retirees. But that is their problem, not mine. A Wall street journal article showed how a .5% tax increase on those who can afford to pay, increased limit for taxable SS earnings and a few other things would easily fund the transition. As for the rest of us below 50, we'll be more than glad to take our chances on the market. I mean, let's get real. Do you liberals actually trust big government? Power corrupts. We all know it. We all prefer local control. And the information age will prevent the abuses of the past. Its time to move on. Really.