unkle, do you feel you have the right to your property? Or life? Or all the other things guaranteed to you by the US Constitution? Cause you didn't sign onto any of those things, either. It's called a social contract for a reason, and you "sign" it by continuing to be a part of the society.
I didn't sign on to those things, but they are natural rights inherent to being a human being, and none of them require me to partake of them if I choose not to. And it's funny you mentioned the constitution. I don't believe I have read anywhere that the federal government has the authority to set up a mandatory retirement plan.
There are no natural rights, there are only socially agreed upon moral rights. The only "natural" right is your right to be free, becuase it's physically impossible to ever fully control someone (at least so far). You're right to property? How inherent is that right, when I can easily steal your property? It's a "right" because I, and other people in our society, have an obligation to respect your right, and claim, to your property, in exchange for the same. How is property a "natural right" when numerous societies in history have not had a conception of property, or thought you could really "own" something? It's a pure social fabrication, it's a social contract. Notice how historically, "rights" came into proper conception
with the concept of a social contract, and of the evolution from a state of nature to a social state. "Rights" are simply statements of a morality, to be enforced by a government and a collective will. If you don't respect my claims to property, we'll imprison you. If you don't respect my right to life, we'll imprison you (and maybe kill you). It set's up a framework.
I also never said that the social contract we have is limited to the Constitution, nor is the Constitution a strictly limited thing. It set's up a groundwork for how the government can work, it
does not say with
precision what can and cannot be done. It gives the power for certain things, it denies the power for certain things, and it gives the framework for other things to come about. The framers were smart enough to realize that setting up a strict and rigid government, like the one you advocate, would be harmful, and it wouldn't work. Where does the authority come from for social safety nets? The stated power to "promote the General Welfare," and the stated power to do everything "necessary and proper" to achieve this end. Did the Founders imagine something like Social Security? No, but they didn't write anything in the Constitution that actually forbids this from occurring, and it leaves the door open; allowing for the people of the Nation to come to their own decision. They first and foremost set up a government responsible to the People.
Your kind of libertarian faces a huge inherent problem: the Founders set up a government. If they believed as you did, there wouldn't BE a federal government, there wouldn't BE a Constitution.
Anyone that appeals to the "Go live to another country" argument or even implies that it's a relatively valid one immediately lands in my "ignore" list.
You are aware it's an extenuation of libertarian philosophy, don't you? Every libertarian I have ever argued against has no problem with people banding together, and doing the things discussed about on their own accord. However, for some reason, when the scale of this banding together get's so large, this goes out the window, and people are no longer allowed to come to social agreements.