He's already lost the money he was forced to pay into it, over half a century's worth.  Furthermore, since he was in private practice and had his own business, he also paid out his own pocket the employer's contribution as well for a lot of that time.  A twofer.  The pittance he's paid now at best attenuates that loss, so there is nothing immoral or hypocritical about cashing the checks.  I have little doubt that he could have grown the lost income (SS taxes) much better than the payout he now receives, so since he has already been damaged in that regard, getting 40 cents back on the dollar is better than nothing.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

But why try to provide a moral justification for making an economic decision?  To a libertarian, shouldn't moral considerations be entirely divorced from economic ones?

I mean, as funny as it is seeing a supposed "libertarian" like Ron Paul faithfully cashing his government-dole social security checks every month, shouldn't the question be why is he so comfortable taking your tax dollars for himself?  Do you have some sort of moral obligation to pay him with your hard earned money just so he can get back his "40 cents on the dollar?"  If you're okay with paying him because of forces beyond his control then where does that end?  Surely you wouldn't want to pay for any random person because of forces beyond their control- or would you?

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

That's just it, he wants people to have the freedom to opt out of social security.  He never had that choice, so he's cashing the checks.  There's certainly nothing immoral about recouping some losses especially in a program that is mandatory.  That's the fundamental issue, the crux of the morality right there:  it's an arbitrary and compulsory participation, all-but guaranteed money loser for many people.  The fact that it might pay back a pittance does not change this fact.  After all, if a robber stole a hundred dollars from you and then sent you a check for $40 you wouldn't think of that as a good or beneficial program, nor would you think you were obligated not to cash the check.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

That's just it, he wants people to have the freedom to opt out of social security.  He never had that choice, so he's cashing the checks.  There's certainly nothing immoral about recouping some losses especially in a program that is mandatory.  That's the fundamental issue, the crux of the morality right there:  it's an arbitrary and compulsory participation, all-but guaranteed money loser for many people.  The fact that it might pay back a pittance does not change this fact.  After all, if a robber stole a hundred dollars from you and then sent you a check for $40 you wouldn't think of that as a good or beneficial program, nor would you think you were obligated not to cash the check.

So there's "certainly nothing immoral" about using your tax dollars "recouping some losses especially in a program that is mandatory."

Got it.

My question to you is, why are you so gung-ho about paying a wealthy (compared to you) Congressman your hard-earned tax dollars so he can recoup some losses on account of something that he had no control over?

I always you knew you had a generous streak in you (I mean you put up with my terrible posting after all), I'm just wondering if it extends to all people who've lost money due to circumstances which are compulsory or otherwise beyond their control- or what?

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

It's pretty simple, really:  if you're forced to pay for something, there's nothing wrong with getting some (not worth the price) benefit.  Who you are, what you have besides that lost payment doesn't matter at all.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

It's pretty simple, really:  if you're forced to pay for something, there's nothing wrong with getting some (not worth the price) benefit.  Who you are, what you have besides that lost payment doesn't matter at all.

So just to be clear: you are personally A-OK with paying your hard-earned tax dollars so that someone else can get some (not worth the price) benefit, no matter who they are, as long as they were forced to pay into it.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

He has receipts in the form of FICA deductions.  It's his money, or at least, how much the government let's him keep after holding it for half a century.  What I'm not fine with is the government taking my money now, for maybe a partial payback in a quarter of a century.  I would opt out of that ripoff in a second if I could, and that's pretty much what Paul has been saying all along:  the individual shouldn't be forced to participate, and should be allowed to exercise their own judgement in planning for their future.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

It's funded by a payroll tax.  The currently employed pay the money which is paid to the currently retired.  This is why some people call it a Ponzi scheme.  

By your argument, one ought to be allowed to opt out of the ripoff, yet still collect a government check until... when?  Until they feel they've been adequately compensated for involuntary participation in the ripoff?  You've paid into that ripoff for many years- if you opted out now, should you get a government check?

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

That's a good point.  I haven't given much thought to reparations, but it's an issue to consider.  I suspect the only viable option might be an either/or proposition:  if you opt out, you lose all claim to past contributions.  This would be in line with the insurance model, where canceling insurance doesn't get you a refund of past premiums, only lack of premiums going forward.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

So your argument is that liberalism is evil? I don't get it...

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

Yes, it is.

That's why you should combat liberalism.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?