Comment: Social security isn't necessarily a bad thing

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: richard wicks (see in situ)

Social security isn't necessarily a bad thing

But it is unconstitutional. Hear me out, please.

Nothing prevents your STATE from having a Social Security except the voters.

I believe very strongly that as a country we should be a group of united STATES. If California wants a Social Security, that's the decision of their voters to have it. Don't like it? Work to change it or leave the state for one that has a system you like.

What if California wants to legalize crystal meth? It's their right.

What if Kansas wants to outlaw abortion? It's also their right.

No system is perfect for everybody - that is the problem with the Federal government, it attempts to impose the same system on everyone. I believe strongly that you should vote with your feet, and I think the best way to get a system that does work for the most people is give 50 systems for Americans to chose from, and let them decide if they want to stay in that system or leave it. If people are sufficiently upset with a system, it will go bankrupt.

Competition works. We need competition in government - this is a simple way to get it.

I'm only a Libertarian at the Federal level, not at the local or state level. Every politician should be a Libertarian at the Federal level, that's the only way they can uphold the constitution which they are required to do.

Personally, I do not like Social Security - not because I disagree with it's intentions, but I don't like giving money to a charity and having the money used for purposes other than what it's stated for and that's what Social Security has become.