Zogby’s poll on Social Security reform via personal investment accounts finds voters supportive of reform “when you use a positive approach on Social Security reform.” I find the approach as I understand it (which I admit could be wrong now) attractive ? rather than contribute to the current Ponzi scheme, an individual would have a choice of private account managers. I also like it for the total subversion of the socialist program it would represent: essentially, counter to Marx’s animating assumption, all workers would be owners of capital.

Nevertheless, one thing still bothers me: it will still be a government mandate that workers set aside a portion of their earnings now for the future, will it not? Social Security reform will entail new choices, but not the choice of those who, for whatever reason, would choose to receive more of their earnings up front. The failing government system would be removed, yes, but still the nanny-state government making a decision for you (you will save for the future; it’s for your own good!) would persist.

Would this be a case of the best being the enemy of the good, since it would perhaps be impossible to get people to think beyond the box of a governmental, “social security” mandate? Or would this represent incremental progress toward financial liberty, just as we have witnessed many incremental transgressions against it?