June 15, 2015
NOTE: If, on Saturday, you tried to use our new Social Security campaign but got an error instead, please try again.
Many libertarians argue for abolishing things like the FDA and Social Security. This naturally meets with resistance from people who feel they personally benefit from such programs. Here at the Zero Aggression Project we take a different approach.
Try this heresy on for size…
Almost nothing The State does needs to be abolished.
What? How could any libertarian say that? Here’s how…
What matters is the initiation of force. Remove that, and most programs could continue as long as they can find willing VOLUNTARY funders and participants. In other words…
- Those who only want to use only FDA-approved substances should be free to do that, and pay those testing services.
- But those who want to opt out of the FDA should be able to do so, and opt out of paying the cost too.
Likewise….
- Those who want to remain in Social Security, should be free to do so, and should continue making payments into the system.
- But those who want to opt out should be free to do so, forgoing both the cost and the benefits.
Do you think this approach might meet with more supporters and less resistance?
You can register your own opinion by answering this question…
Do you think participation in Social Security should be mandatory?
Click on the link. Use the slider the answer the question. While you’re there, please sign one of the petitions about voluntary Social Security — Support or Oppose.
This is new software. If you tried to do this Saturday, but encountered an error message, our programmer fixed it. Please try again.
We’ll report back soon on the results, and a NEW way to change the world.
Jim Babka & Perry Willis
Co-creators, Zero Aggression Project
I see that participation could be optional, and it is not a bad idea. But if it was, how would we fund all of the “benefits” that our society provides for the disabled, poor, or elderly? Many of the programs to support these individuals are funded by programs such as S.S., while widely abused, many people rely on it for their livelihood.
Hi Melissa. Thanks for the question. Neuroscience tells us that helping others produces chemicals in our brain that are equivalent to cocaine. It feels good to help others. This is true for all humans, except for the tiny number of sociopaths among us (some of whom are in Congress. This implies that people will act to help others without having a tax collector’s gun pointed at them. Now ask yourself this question…
Which does a better job of providing housing for the poor? The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), or Habitat for Humanity? I think the answer is pretty clear. HUD has always been racked with corruption. Several of its Secretaries have gone to prison. Habitat is clearly better. There’s a reason for this. HUD relies on violence-based funding (taxation). It gets funded no matter how badly it performs. It even gets rewarded with higher budges when it fails. All State programs are like this. By comparison, Habitat for Humanity and all other voluntary charities have to do a good job, or they will lose funding.
I think we need to shift away from violence-based funding. It’s impractical. Voluntary efforts work better, and they need more funding. If people had to pay less in taxes they would have more money for charity, and we would get better results. I hope you find this idea appealing. Turn away from violence-based programs. Embrace Zero Aggression. Thanks for the question Melissa.
While I totally agree that one should not have to support any government program (including defense, utilities, courts, or anything). That being said — petitioning the government to have them release to the people the priviledge of self-government is laughable. One must be realistic and understand that the government will never easily give up its grasp on its power and control. Especially not because some group made a request.
We must practice agorism and go around the state. Let their entitlement system collapse under its own weight. Then the world will have actual freedom nearly everywhere and then we can see which free-market systems can build and become the most beneficial at that point.
Thanks for the comment RJ. We actually agree with you. Please notice that our petitions do not go to the government. That is NOT their purpose. Their purpose is to be seen by other citizens. Our aim is three-fold…
1. The share our ideas with all Americans
2. To locate, recruit, and activate those who agree with us
3. To move those who disagree gradually in our direction
We believe that this is the way to forge a new social consensus, one small step at a time. That is the necessary prelude to any kind of social change. As for how to bring about the final change, once the new social consensus is in place, we are agnostic. It might indeed be that massive public pressure could cause Congress to submit. But we also see the need and value for agorist alternatives, as you describe. We even have a few ideas of our own to contribute in that regard. But those will come later. We hope you decide to participate, including with our petitions. Remember, the importance of the petitions is what they communicate to other people, NOT the gangsters in Congress.
Social Security was never about providing a financial safety net else it would have been made voluntary from the start. Even if you believe the argument that it was necessary because there needed to be a way to quickly raise enough funds to start paying out to qualified persons since it was not funded by any other means then the program would have been switched to voluntary after the first few years.
The Social Security program is about establishing the basis for the government to take wealth from its citizens in a way to they never see that wealth to begin with and thus are slowly made accustom to never having that money to begin with. Its why so many who get tax refunds these days believe they are getting free money from the government instead of seeing the truth that they are simply getting back some of what was taken from them. Social Security was a reasonable sounding explanation for why the government should be allowed to steal.
Thanks for the comment William. We agree of course. So how do we change the way Americans think about such things? Could it be that showing people the violence inherent in the system could begin to change minds? This is our approach. Our effort to do this is only a few days old, but already we can see some people moving in our direction. If you have NOT answered the initial question on our Social Security campaign, please go there and do that. Then look at the results in the side column, under “What The Crowd Thinks.” Notice that we measure both movement toward and away from us. Take a look at the numbers. We hope you find them interesting, and that you choose to participate in our work.