Do you use the Enforcement Question? #tlot Re-Tweet
You’ve heard it before…
Libertarians are selfish. That’s why they want to end “beneficial” programs like Social Security.
Our Zero Aggression approach defeats this arguments in multiple ways.
First, we don’t want to end Social Security. We just want people to have a choice.
- Those who want to participate in Social Security should be allowed to do that.
- But those who don’t like Social Security should be let out.
This approach removes the aggression — the threats of initiated force that extort people to participate against their will. But…
It doesn’t end Social Security, it ADDS something to it — the freedom to choose. And that’s all the libertarian philosophy requires — removing aggression. We want that because…
We care. We feel empathy. We don’t want to tread on others.
Taking this approach allows you to turn the tables on those who favor mandatory Social Security. You can ask them…
“Why do you want to hurt people who disagree with you? It’s fine that you like Social Security. No one wants to take that away from you. But you should care about other people too. Not just yourself. Let those who disagree opt-out.”
Of course, they may respond with something like this…”I don’t want to harm anyone. Social Security helps people.” When that happens, it’s time to ask the Enforcement Question. We do that like this on our website…
What if you had to personally force people to participate in Social Security?
You may believe some good result makes Social Security a necessary exception to the Zero Aggression Principle, but please consider…
What if there were no armed tax collectors to compel people to participate in Social Security? What if you had to enforce participation yourself?
You would feel like a hero if you used force to stop a beating, burglary, or murder. But what if you had to point a gun at your friends, family, or neighbors to make them participate in Social Security against their will? Would you still feel you were doing something moral?
It’s easy to ignore moral principles when the violations are hidden from you, and when you don’t have to do the dirty work yourself. But does that mean no wrong has been done?
Does initiating force against others become morally okay if you delegate the violence to someone else?
Shouldn’t you stop asking politicians to impose things on other people? Shouldn’t you allow people to opt out of Social Security, forgoing both the benefits and the taxes? Isn’t this Zero Aggression approach the moral position?
Do you like our Enforcement Question? If so, please use it. You can start doing that right now…
- Go to this page on our site — use the slider to register your opinion about this question.
- Sign the Social Security petition if you haven’t done so already.
- Use our social networking tools to share the Enforcement Question on Facebook, Google+, and Twitter.
- Please also consider making a contribution so we can spread these arguments to more people.
Thank you, in advance, for participating in our work.
ZAP The State and have a nice day,
Jim Babka & Perry Willis
Co-creators, the Zero Aggression Project