Goal 1:

Universal retirement, disability and under age financial support for every member of society.

Obstacles

There does not seem to be any principled objection to caring for people unable to support themselves. There seem to be two practical objections that are commonly raised. The first is the Libertarian argument that every member of society should be responsible for themselves as discussed under general obstacles.

Second, many people are troubled by cheating. That is, someone getting benefits for which they are not in need. This tends to be less of a problem with old age benefits, but has long been a sore point with regard to disability. This is also discussed previously.

The issue then becomes one of resources. Can a society afford to provide for the old, the young and the infirm? Obviously a society at a subsistence level faces different challenges than a wealthy one. For developed societies, the society can afford the costs, it is just a question of what other activities will be restricted to pay for the support. Since most developed countries have solved this redistribution problem in large part it can certainly be done. Where there is a will there is a way.

Support for the old can be seen as relieving individuals from the necessity of paying for the upkeep of their parents and older family members. Similar arguments can be made for the unhealthy. By making such liabilities a community based one individuals are assured that they will not be suddenly cast into a situation where their own long-range economic plans are jeopardized.

Implementation

We currently provide between 70-90% of these costs through a variety of mechanisms. Bring this up to 100% is not that expensive, and will be partly offset by expenses now incurred from the current inefficiencies and program overlaps. The issues of whether these expenses should be community based, or depend on programs for individuals, should not be clouded by false appeals to Libertarianism. There are certain costs associated with living in a modern society and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. We can choose to have the programs administered by private, government or quasi-government organizations. If we choose private then we must be willing to acknowledge that we are deliberately increasing the administrative expenses to provide for the profits expected by private firms. As long as society makes a deliberate choice that funds are going to be recirculated via this mechanism it can be a viable model.

[This discussion mostly applies to the developed world, those in the underdeveloped world have to be dealt with differently. First there needs to be a determination if the total resources of a society are adequate, assuming they were not maldistributed. If this is so than much of the above discussion may apply. For those societies where this is not so there needs to be a separate plan on the international transfer of wealth to the less fortunate. Currently there are no such viable plans or ways to enforce them if they were created.]