The strength of social programs has long been the fact that everyone is forced to contribute to them, regardless of benefits derived therefrom. The absolute denial that such programs constitute theft has spurned all sorts of justifcations for such programs: the children, the common welfare, the elderly, the infirm, the moral argument, benevolence, etc…

None of these arguments offers a refutation of the following argument:

Since there exists a subset of the population who wishes neither to contribute to such programs (evidenced, for instance, by those who propose an “opt-out” system of Social Security, and myriad other programs), or to benefit from them suggests that those people are not willingly participating in the support thereof. That proponents of such programs steadfastly refuse any attempt to “opt-out” of the programs is prima facie evidence that such programs are unsustainable (or that the proponents believe them to be unsustainable) without the contributions of all men. To force such men to contribute involuntarily to such programs is a violation of their rights to self-determination.

If you know you can’t do something without my help, and I refuse to assist you in your endeavor – forcing me to do so by any means (the law, included) does not legitimize your actions. It simply makes me indentured, without recourse, to your cause.

thanks, Bastiat.