Is it hypocritical for a Libertarian to oppose Social Security and Medicare while collecting Social Security and using Medicare in retirement?
No. There is an important difference between opposing a government program and refusing to recover benefits from a system you were forced to finance.
For our entire working lives, the government required us to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. We weren’t given the option of keeping that money and investing it privately for retirement. The government took the money with the promise that benefits would be available when we reached retirement age.
A Libertarian can believe that was a bad system while still accepting the benefits after decades of compulsory participation.
Think of it this way: If the government forced you to pay into a retirement plan you opposed for 40 or 50 years, refusing the benefits at retirement wouldn’t undo the program. It would simply mean you paid for something and then voluntarily walked away from what the system promised in return.
That’s not a requirement of libertarian philosophy.
Ayn Rand—who was not herself a Libertarian—made essentially this argument when she accepted Social Security and Medicare. She maintained that opponents of the welfare state could legitimately accept government benefits as partial restitution for money the government had previously taken from them.
Nor does opposing these programs mean they should disappear tomorrow.
Millions of Americans have spent decades planning their retirements around Social Security and Medicare. Government made those commitments, and people reasonably relied upon them. Pulling the rug out from under current retirees would be both unjust and politically unrealistic.
The responsible Libertarian position is a transition.
Protect current retirees and those nearing retirement while gradually allowing younger Americans to keep more of their earnings and place that money into privately owned retirement accounts, private insurance, health savings accounts, or other competitive alternatives. Over time, Social Security and Medicare could be phased out as compulsory programs rather than abruptly abolished.
There is no contradiction in saying:
“I oppose this system. I would not have created it. I want future generations to have a private alternative. But after being compelled to finance it throughout my working life, I am not obligated to surrender the benefits I was promised.”
That’s not hypocrisy.
It’s recognizing the difference between living under the system we have and advocating for the freer system we believe we should have.
Disclaimer: Member articles are published to encourage debate and discussion within the party. The views and opinions in each piece belong to the author and do not always reflect any platform plank or official LP stance. We encourage people to challenge the status quo — including our own.