Goal for writing   (Social) Security Or Prosperity:

I wrote the paper precisely because  the president's  (or proposed)  plan(s)  are  so poorly defined,  and complicated:  worse than leaving the  familiar plan  as it is.  The goal of  my paper  is  to set the stage  for comparison  of:  personal responsibility  or  government security  for personal survival.  This contrasts with  being  an incompetent  who is  a  ward  of  the State.      An  April Fool’s day spoof:  issue of: OFF  THE  WALL STREET JOURNAL "Unemployment Disappears Overnight!" "Parliament passed legislation which made  unemployment  a  crime—  punishable  by  Death!" "Next morning,  newspaper reporters  interviewed  people  on the streets of  London,  and were unable  to find anyone  who  would admit  to being unemployed:  vacation,  leave of  absence,  retired,  etc."      Perhaps  the next  logical step  could be  the  legal declaration  by  those  who are insecure,  and choose to remain on  Social Security plan;  that  they are incompetent  to manage their personal affairs  relative to retirement.  Government guardians  could be appointed.  All  their earnings could be diverted  to  the guardian/trustee,  and  disbursements  would be made  to conserve assets  and  protect the  (self confessed incompetents)  from  their own profligacy.      I  chose the example of  complete withdrawal  from receiving any  payments from government  when retired,  to  define  this  principle. Proportionate withdrawal—  such as  paying off  a mortgage  or  paying off  indentured obligation,  can be understood  relative to  Black - or - White alternatives.      Ability to provide  half  or  a  third  of  the  Social Security retirement income  should not  be complex.  Yet  the proposed dollar  amounts  and percentages  to be “privatized ”  are  so  tiny,  that  they are  a  cruel joke.      A mule  which is  half-harnessed  is equivalent  to  remaining in  shackles,  whenever  the  Mule-skinner  yanks  the bit  and controls  the food.      Complex  and unintelligible restrictions are  the most effective way  to pacify slaves  with a fantasy  that  they are  partially free.      The issue is clear  when one chooses  to walk away,  and  is  stopped short   by  the  leg-iron  of  an obscure  sub-clause addendum.   U.S. Army Reserve soldiers  discovered  just  such  an  unyielding chain,  when  one officer  had  explicitly resigned  his commission  after  his active duty service.      He  was ordered  to report  for deployment  to  Iraq  as  an officer.  Only then  was he told  the  previously  undisclosed  policy: Resignations  of  commission  are not accepted!   This edict was enforced despite the fact that  the man had filed papers  which were approved,  to resign his commission as an officer.  Apparently  he was  the only officer who had  the foresight  to attempt resignation. This was not an issue of  military manpower. This was an  explicit statement of  principle:    The individual  is subject  to Government. Clear as Day—  is  the standard  I seek:  to understand  my obligations to government,  and  my agreements  contracted  with  people.      Cratylus Isonomia.US