Weed legalized in Cali and age to buy Tobacco is raised to 21. Seems weird to celebrate both.

[DanTex]

82. OK. I disagree, I think that point of view is entirely arbitrary with respect to liberty.

And by the way, I'm not talking about taxes in general, I'm talking specifically about social security, which has nothing to do with commerce and is not about responsibility to society. Social security is not a redistributive welfare program, it is a mandatory individual retirement program run by the government. Indeed, the very fact that social security benefits are earned -- meaning you get out (roughly) what you put in -- is one of the reasons the GOP has had such a hard time getting rid of it. Social security exists to protect people from their own financial irresponsibility. If people would voluntarily take the money that they pay in SS taxes and invest them responsibly on their own, there would be no need for SS. But that's not what people do, so there is a need for SS, otherwise we end up with huge numbers of retirees living in poverty.

Anyway, I don't think there's anything special about the right to put things into your own body. The importance of each freedom can only be ranked each individual in society, not by you or I. I would guess, and granted I have have no evidence, but my guess is that most people would rank the right to control their wallets higher than the right to put toxic chemicals into their body.

Me, for example. If I could opt out of social security I would. Not that it's a huge problem for me, but it makes no sense financially for me. On the other hand, if heroin was legal, I still wouldn't use it. The right to inject heroin matters zero to me. It comes down to practicality, costs and benefits. And to the extent that I feel violated by either drug laws or social security, the violation by social security is far greater.

I'm sure there are people who feel differently, but it's a matter of opinion, not of principle. Either way there is government coercion, loss of liberty, and in both cases it is justified IMO by cost-benefits.

Also, an important point here is that shooting heroin is not actually illegal. Possessing heroin is illegal, but even that is a minor crime compared what they are really after, which is distributing heroin. Like I said above, I don't think possession of small quantities for personal use should be illegal. But I definitely think dealing should be illegal, and in this matter there is no civil liberties questions whatsoever. Having the right to poison yourself most definitely does not mean that you have the right to sell that poison to other people for profit.

PS, you're right that social security is pay-as-you go, but the way it is structured is irrelevant. Sure, the dollar bills you put in aren't the same dollar bills that you get out, but it is still a personal retirement fund. The key fact is that the government keeps track of how much you put in, and then when you retire, the amount you get out is a function of what you put in. This is the same as any other investment. If you invest in, whatever, a vineyard, then the money you put in goes to buy land and grapes and all that. Then years later, the vineyard sells wine to people, and turns around and gives some of that money back to you. And the amount you get back is a function of the amount you put in.