A fellow keeps writing me with the claim that Social Security will not be mandatory under the Bush plan, on grounds that: “The employer or employee who doesn’t wish to participate in the portion for private accounts is absolutely free to stay with the old--and, I might say, antiquated--plan. We must change with the times.” Maybe it is definition issue, and it turns out that he is on the Executive Committee of the RNC (no surprise) but here is what I wrote him:
Let’s say a robber comes to my home and says “your money or your life. If you choose to give me money, you have a further choice of whether I will invest it in stocks or bonds. Don’t worry either way: I’ll return it in a few decades from now.” Now to this I might say: this is coercion and a crime! But just then an intellectual working for the robber shows up to explain that “this system is actually far better than the old system which allowed no choice. Indeed, this new system isn’t mandatory at all, since it permits the robbed to chose how he would like his money used!”
The example might be silly but it speaks to a serious issue. Bush administration apologists have long obfuscated this question about the difference between real choice and “choice” within an inherently coercive system.
