 |
| SSP No. 14 |
October 29, 1998
|
The Moral Case for Social Security Privatization
by Daniel Shapiro
Daniel Shapiro is associate professor of Philosophy at West Virginia University. He has published numerous articles in social and political philosophy and public policy.
Executive Summary
The most important arguments for Social Security privatization are moral,
not economic. Privatization would not be justifiable if it were economically
beneficial but morally suspect.
However, a privatized Social Security system meets moral criteria far better
than does our current, bankrupt, pay-as-you-go system. A privatized Social Security
system gives individuals more freedom to run their lives, is fairer, provides
more security, and creates less antagonism between generations, fostering a
greater sense of community.
In fact, privatization is defensible not only from the classical 1iberal or
libertarian perspective, based on maximizing individual choice and liberty,
but from virtually every perspective in political philosophy. Egalitarians,
who frame their arguments in terms of fairness, welfare theorists who frame
their arguments in terms of economic security, communitarians who frame their
arguments in terms of community, and anyone who frames an argument in terms
of whether average citizens understand the institutions or programs which they
are asked to support, should all support privatization.
Index of Social Security Choice Papers
|
|
