Privatizing Social Security - How Does a Tax Become A Private Investment? November 10, 2002
	<<Previous Next>>

Perhaps the synchronicity between the bottom of a business and a mid-term politico election cycle can be blamed for the demise of the heated debate to move the government-run retirement program we call Social Security into the 'private' indexes known as the stock market. The debate is sure to return. Before it does, let's examine how, or even if this 'tax' can ever become a citizen's private investment.

Social Security Reform, Political Posturing, or Damage Control?

The bait politicians use to lure in aging Citizen's on this flawed debate of Social Security reform is the hope for a bigger slice of the pie as they approach their golden years. Who could possibly be against that? A combination of two factors lead citizens to believe the bait is tasty. The name of the bait, which is called 'Social Security reform', and the appeal of the bait that government will actually honor a citizen's self-interest with respect to personal control of their retirement planning. The smell of a favorable future rate of return in the market as opposed to the fictitious government 'lock-box' with its meager return is what makes people salivate over the bait. So it's here we will find the babel bobber of Privatizing Social Security jumping up-n-down in the sea of election cycles and positive market fluctuations. The fiscal contrast based upon rate of return and the class warfare that ensues between the haves vested in the private market, and the majority of have-nots solely vested in the government-run insolvent Ponzi scheme of Social Security forces the issue of privatization to the surface when the market is doing well. The debate is effectively exploited for political gain, but only when appropriate. That is when all poll numbers and market arrows are pointing up!

The Bait and Switch

The political parties who control the debate of Social Security reform have managed to deter the truth from being realized, and for good reason. Truth be told, each political party would be out of business if they inadvertently let the public know that Social Security is not just an insolvent retirement plan requiring yearly funding by Congress, but managed by a tax that is collected primarily for economic and social control. More importantly, that the Citizen has a private decision to make, and is already in ultimate control of how his or her money is held regardless of the actions of government. But before the misleading rhetoric reemerges again from the talking-heads we will set the record straight, and show why the debate of privatizing Social Security is a red herring meant to draw off those closing in on the answer to real reform.

Private, Privatism, and Privatize

Private means: intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class. Privatism means: the attitude of being uncommitted to or avoiding involvement in anything beyond one's immediate interests. Privatize means: to make private, to change (as a business or industry) from public to private control or ownership - privatization.

As you can see from the progressive definitions extending from the root of the word 'private', privatize requires change of control or ownership of a business or industry that is held as a public venture into a business or industry that is for exclusive private use restricted to the control and ownership of another particular person, group, or class. The word 'privatize' is really a misnomer, bastardization if you will of the root word private. There is a dual meaning for the word 'private' contained within the definition of the term privatize, and a metamorphosis occurs changing the meaning of the root word private for the benefit of the new word - privatize. First, by saying that the public [a group of people as a whole such as the corporate body of Citizens consisting of the United States] has private ownership and control of a business or industry, and then somehow has the authority to make it even more private by relinquishing control to that of another particular person, group, or class says something very interesting about the word privatize. It says that the public [any or all individuals] makes a conscious decision to forgo an intrinsic right of private ownership in exchange for nothing. Second, the privatization that results from something that is privatized makes it private. But exactly for who has an industry and business been made private, and what is now held in control privately that once was not already private?

Here is a fine example of an industry and business which has been privatized - the United States Treasury. The people's Treasury and its assets, which was once held in public trust for the people of this country was privatized and is now in control and ownership by what is known as the Federal Reserve System. The ownership and control of Federal Reserve System is intended for, and restricted to the use of particular class of people, and it is not the people of the United States. Private stock holders who own and control the Federal Reserve, own and control the money in circulation, and effectively now own the people of the United States and their labor. The completed transfer of the United States Treasury that occurred when the Federal Reserve Act was passed is what can be called privatization.

Now We Shall Privatize What is Already Yours… Huh?

The premise of lawfully returning the assets of the public trust held by government in the Social Security Program would require the wholesale liquidation of that publicly held entity and equal shares returned back to the people who make up the public. Since there is nothing of value there, this would be impossible to accomplish. Besides, if the powers that be considered ending Social Security based upon this ideal it would be political suicide, because there just aren't enough 'fair-shares' to go around. Hiding the fact that the government is a horrible money-manger, since all they really know how to do is spend, isn't working. Could this be the reason why the finger pointing and political word games continue? The solution according to the debaters then is to privatize what is, or once was yours. Would you like that? Sure you say. But isn't the money already mine?

Privatism, Looking Out for Your Best Interest

Does the Social Security Program contain a private investment account with your name on it? No. It's a public assistance and welfare program. Does a Citizen make a private decision to participate in the Social Security Program? Yes. Participation in the Social Security System, that is the taxes sent off to support the wealth redistribution program is completely built upon the ongoing consent of Citizens, hence it is a private decision that starts with the Citizen. If a person feels that Social Security is a bad investment then perhaps they can relate to the definition of privatism, which means to, "…avoid involvement in anything beyond their immediate interests." For example, if flushing money down the toilet is beyond a Citizen's immediate interest, why then would they join others in the event - just because everyone else is doing it? Why not avoid involvement in the insanity altogether?

A Private Decision to, or not to Voluntarily Comply

The fact is that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to provide for the well being of citizens through public entitlement programs. Article V of the Bill of Rights makes it clear that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. If everyone were required to participate in a public use program like Social Security, and have his or her property taken for public use, you would expect that just compensation would be equal and easy. By natural law what is taken must be returned, yet this has never been the case in communist countries where property ownership is discretionary at the hands of the State. Is the United States any different? Yes! We're a Constitutional Republic, one of the tenants being that private property is respected and protected. Therefore Citizens must formally consent to waiving their rights of just compensation before the taking of private property occurs by government for the public use. An application to volunteer to be a practicing Socialist is required of the Citizen first, so that government cannot be accused of violating due process of law later, which obviously becomes inapplicable in this case. When a Citizen understands that participation in Social Security is blind and misguided philanthropy antagonistic to a free society then they may object if they wish.

Social Security funds are collected as a voluntary tax, and are spent just as fast. The Social Security system was craftily designed so as not to violate the Constitution, and today is portrayed as compulsory for Citizens largely due to ignorance. It has become the largest 'system' of legalized plunder to ever grace the planet. Accepting the political promises of representatives in government who take private property now in return for a future benefit later is a grand illusion that will eventually be exposed.

Ending the Self Delusion

The same way the government can end Social Security at the drop of a hat, with all of its integral welfare programs, a Citizen may also at any time make the personal decision to quit funding the program. Citizens taught this fact early enough in life may relish in the financial freedom later of never ever applying to participate, as many are doing now.

How is this done? For those Citizens who stop participating it is as simple as not volunteering to send the payroll taxes connected to the program to Washington. What could already be more private than the act of a Citizen deciding to, or not to consent to the withholding of his or her personal private property for Social Security purposes? By making this decision they're ultimately deciding to immediately receive all of what they earn to spend, save, or invest as they see fit - privately. On the other hand, the private decision in the case of a practicing Socialist may be to send off as much of their earnings as they like to Washington via their payroll taxes. The fact that this is indeed a private decision to participate in Social Security may seem contrary to most readers due to the widespread belief that participation in Social Security is mandatory, and that personal consent is not an option due to the IRS modus operandi, and that the employment scheme of today is - no number, no work. Yet ample evidence to the fact that Social Security participation is consensual has been provided in the language used to define the debate to 'privatize' Social Security, not to mention the entire application process required to play the game. The language and rule of privatization used among those who seek to maintain control of this inherently broken system provides the answer. It shows that what was once private property starting off in the hands of citizens and then given freely by their formal consent to government in return for future no fault fair-share redistribution to those participating in this peasant pyramid scheme is actually nothing more than a voluntary contribution based upon a Citizens own private decision.

Which is why we can safely say... "Socialism in America - Still 100% Voluntary!"

Other related articles concerning Social Security and how to quit the program can be found here.

Bryan Rusch is an exam certified independent representative of the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, and manager of the Tax Freedom 101 program. The program designed to show Americans how they can quit Social Security to keep 100% of their earnings to save for their own retirement.

"Give me your four year-olds and in a generation I will build a socialist state ... destroy the family and the society will collapse." -- Vladimir Lenin

DISCLAIMER: The data on this website is the collaborative experience, contributions, and research of various websites, legal books, tax documents, researchers, associates, attorneys, CPA's, etc. and does not constitute legal advice. The primary purpose of this site is education. We do not advocate any specific course of action. What you do with this information and any course of action you decide to take, if any, is entirely your responsibility.

]