Governments Lie: Will We Learn?

From a 1936 pamphlet on Social Security:

Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States Government will set up a Social Security account for you, if you are eligible. To understand your obligations, rights, and benefits you should read the following general explanation.

….

THIS means that if you work in some factory, shop, mine, mill, store, office, or almost any other kind of business or industry, you will be earning benefits that will come to you later on. From the time you are 65 years old, or more, and stop working, you will get a Government check every month of your life, ….

The checks will come to you as a right. You will get them regardless of the amount of property or income you may have. They are what the law calls “Old-Age Benefits” under the Social Security Act.

Why would I reach back through history to quote this? Lets consider another quote, from the same source.

There has been a temptation throughout the program’s history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense.

….

In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor’s denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor’s benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.

I find this interesting because the social security program is, in the United States, considered a fundamental safety net. It is an expression of a strong positive right—the right of everyone to have some small income on which they may depend when they are retired, or when they are injured, or otherwise overcome by the events of life. The repudiation of social security as a right is the strongest repudiation of “positive rights” we will ever find, because it deals with a foundational social justice program in the United States.

The reality is, this repudiation isn’t an isolated incident. You will not find a single government program that expresses a positive right, provided in the name of social justice, that the government will claim it is actually responsible to provide. And this isn’t just the United States Government, but every government throughout history, throughout the world.

So, this leads to a fundamental question:If governments don’t claim to provide you with positive rights, and hence, with social justice, then why do you look to them for these things?