The polarizing narrative that there's half the population trying to get away with not working isn't helping anything. Are there people like that? Yes. But it's not the sweeping hordes of mindless moochers that keeps being framed as a justification for abandoning the need for a social safety system. We have an abject poverty problem with the massive costs that inflicts on everyone in areas where market mechanisms have critically failed, and there's a real ROI on addressing that. More than that though, it's also hard to ignore we have a financial system that's entire existence was rooted in advantaging particular groups over others, with only incremental advancements in improving on that. There are people who have accumulated wealth in their accounts not by the merits of their own hands but by manipulations of a system that gamed returns away from those who created the value into the pockets of those who were given access to exclusive rules of engagements that skewed the rewards in their favor unduly. That also matters, and as a Libertarian who firmly believes the rewards belong to those who took the risk and made the effort, that's an issue that also needs fixed. There's a tendency to ignore things like that, to oversimplify the nuances in sweeping statements like the above that's one of my biggest barriers for being a full-fledged Libertarian supporter. I think this Party is on the right track but there's elements where the necessary nuance is being abandoned in trade for easy soundbites, sweeping generalizations, and inappropriate objectifications as to frame the extraordinary challenges we have in front of us as if it can be solved by deploying a one-size-fits-all policy and blaming others for where that fails. We need critical thought and dynamic approaches to address a world that is not black and white. Statements pretending the world is that simple don't help anyone. There are times where state sponsorship of failing services makes sense even under a Libertarian's sensibilities, despite that some might argue that is an approach that is borderline socialist, but where that's the only realistic option I think that is not only appropriate but necessary.

Isn't social security a trillion dollar bank, essentially all of which has been contributed by citizens, correct?

Unfortunately Dr. Adrian Rogers was born in 1931 and died in 2005. He was a great preacher. The quote is great, but the date is incorrect. "He didn't deliver this quote until 1984, not far removed from the start of the Reagan-era "supply-side economics" policies that demonstrated its falsehood. Second, attributing the quote to "Dr. Adrian Rogers" gives it a veneer of "learned man" respectability, but the late Dr. Rogers was a television preacher and demagogue, not an economist. Third and much more importantly, Rogers was playing rhetorical games in this paragraph and I’m going to dissect it piece by piece." W. Randy Hoffman

Why can't like minded socialists all band together and create their very own little socialist state all of their own and leave the rest of us out of it? That way they can be happy and we can be happy watching their creation fall apart

I wanted to express my gratitude for your post.

Is that supposed to be Rogers' birth year?

Not disagreeing with the quote. But it seems to leave a few factors out, oversimplifying "division of wealth"