We have nether the numbers nor the strength to eliminate the welfare state directly. There are of course always a wide variety of indirect approaches we might try.

One thing we might try is to convenes people that the only way they can get anything out of the welfare state is for the government to relinquish its control of "their money". Highlighting government incompetents might be useful propaganda towards helping us achieve that end.

At that point privatizing Social Security and Medicare would be preferable to what your getting now(nothing). Basically we are asking people to do is trust themselves more then the government. (Yea i know thats not a lot on face value).

But we would also be assuming a gigantic dept i beleive on the order of 40 trillion dollars openly which would have to be payed into theses individual accounts. It would be difficult but it remains possible that we could survive 40 trillion new dollars in the economy, if we also ended fractional reserve banking at the same time or just before,

That way that 40 trillion will not become 40 Quadrillion dollars in inflation.

Once their individualized and privatized we will be able to get rid of the mandatory participation.

It should be noted that this is essentially what the republican party has been trying to do under Bush.

If this were true, why is it that the number of those who voted for Obama in 2008 was 66%, 13% higher than the overall electorate?

Sadly, it is not true. The 18-29 demographic are significantly more at ease with socialism and Progressivism, 78% pro to 18% against, in the latter case.

I'm happy to see that the author is in the pro-liberty group, but most of his compadres, unfortunately, are not.

P.S. I tried three times to provide links to support my assertions but the message comes back that my comment was deleted in each case. So, I'm trying without the html.

If this were true, why is it that the number of those who voted for Obama in 2008 was 66%, 13% higher than the overall electorate?

[http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1031/young-voters-in-the-2008-election]

Sadly, it is not true. The 18-29 demographic are significantly more at ease with socialism and Progressivism, 78% pro to 18% against, in the latter case.

[http://shavingleviathan.blogspot.com/2010/05/views-on-political-words-by-age-group.html]

I'm happy to see that the author is in the pro-liberty group, but most of his compadres, unfortunately, are not.

If this were true, why is it that the number of those who voted for Obama in 2008 was 66%, 13% higher than the overall electorate?

[http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1031/young-voters-in-the-2008-election]

Sadly, it is not true. The 18-29 demographic are significantly more at ease with socialism and Progressivism, 78% pro to 18% against, in the latter case.

[http://shavingleviathan.blogspot.com/2010/05/views-on-political-words-by-age-group.html]

I'm happy to see that the author is in the pro-liberty group, but most of his compadres, unfortunately, are not.

If this were true, why is it that the percentage of those who voted for Obama in 2008 was 66%, 13% higher than the overall electorate. Sadly, it is not true. The 18-29 demographic are significantly more at ease with socialism and Progressivism – 78% pro to 18% against, in the latter case – than those among the older groups.

I'm happy to see that the author is in the pro-liberty group, but most of his compadres, unfortunately, are not.

To the article's point, I'm glad to see people continuing along the path to freedom by addressing the civil liberties part. To me, freedom is an absolute. One is either free, or not free. Demanding freedom and liberty for one's self while imposing tyranny on others, is self defeating. Take the AZ law, for instance. This issue hits close to home for many of the newly baptized freedom/liberty minded Tea Party folks. They would rather see my freedom imposed upon by having a fellow American who's only authority is derived through the barrel of a gun demand that I prove my citizenship. I should never be forced to do that (unless I'm coming back into the country, perhaps). And the notion that the police need probable cause? They will find a way to find it if they want to see my papers. ( unfortunately, it is already happening -http://www.checkpointusa.org/blog/index.php )

My solution is along the civil liberties path, and very simple. Eliminate welfare, end that horribly expensive failure known as the war on drugs, and streamline the immigration process (no country just lets people in, but neither are their immigration processes as cumbersome or expensive as the U.S.)

Again, one is either free, or not free. There is no in between.

[youtube=muHg86Mys7Ihttp://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=5763#comment-319579 People aren't 'given' or granted rights, they are born with them (and not just the people born within imaginary lines in the sand called borders). The idea behind the Bill of Rights is to list those rights your government is supposed to protect (something it is becoming less inclined to do)