Walter Williams has a great piece on the contrast between the views of this country's founders and the views of government today:

Most of what Congress does fits the description of forcing one American to serve the purposes of another American. That description differs only in degree, but not in kind, from slavery.

At least two-thirds of the federal budget represents forcing one American to serve the purposes of another. Younger workers are forced to pay for the prescriptions of older Americans; people who are not farmers are forced to serve those who are; nonpoor people are forced to serve poor people; and the general public is forced to serve corporations, college students and other special interests who have the ear of Congress.

The supreme tragedy that will lead to our undoing is that so far as personal economic self-interests are concerned, it is perfectly rational for every American to seek to live at the expense of another American. Why? Not doing so doesn't mean he'll pay lower federal taxes. All it means is that there will be more money for somebody else.

In other words, once Congress establishes that one person can live at the expense of another, it pays for everyone to try to do so. You say, "Williams, don't you believe in helping your fellow man?" Yes, I do. I believe that reaching into one's own pockets to help his fellow man is both laudable and praiseworthy. Reaching into another's pockets to help his fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

While I doubt it was his goal, leftwing activist Dave Lindorff nonetheless supplies proof that Williams is right. He argues that the baby boomers of his generation are about to have the numbers to ensure that the following generation will be working for their elders:

As Tim Fuller, [60-year-old executive director of Gray Panthers] sees it, the sooner boomers realize that thanks to their growing political clout Social Security will be whatever they want it to be in years to come, the sooner they can rally to improve its financial condition, the easier needed reforms will be and the more they'll be able to demand from the system in the future. (Example: In 2042, it would take a 49 percent increase in the payroll tax to fund the projected benefits shortfall. Today, a tiny 1.9 percent rise in the payroll tax, split between employer and employee, would fund the system fully through 2075.)

That awareness may start coming soon.

Says Tom Hayden, a founder of Students for a Democratic Society and now a grizzled member of the California legislature: "'60s people were tempted, under [Bill] Clinton, to buy into the conservative warnings that Social Security might go bankrupt, and that maybe it should be privatized. But with the recent Enron scandals, I think perhaps they're getting religion regarding Social Security. I think that generation will be inclined now to fight to preserve it. At 63, I'm probably one of the oldest of the '60s generation, and I'm certainly starting to think about my Social Security retirement benefits."

The gray Baby Boom generation will soon be a majority. I say this as a member of it myself, and while I abhor the views of people like Tom Hayden, I don't think there's any way to prevent people from voting their own interests. As Linsdorff concludes, the Baby Boomers can simply vote for whatever "revolution" they want:

The interesting thing to contemplate is the probable broader impact of a boomer movement to improve Social Security. Because Social Security has always been universal, rather than need based, improving it would mean dramatically improving the lives of the poor and the disabled. Carried over into Medicare, an offshoot of the Social Security retirement program, such a movement could easily lead, finally, to some kind of national health system.

The potential is there, if boomers wake up to it, for a real senior revolution.

There's no law requiring anyone to be a wage slave for the government, to work full time and fork over, say, the 75% of his salary that might result from this revolution. So, because we really don't have slavery, what would happen if the minority of taxpayers simply refused to work? If working for wages meant being slaves for the majority of tax eaters, what in a free country would force them?

What's a non-working majority to do?

Repeal the 13th Amendment?

(Or maybe just redefine the so-called "right to work" as a mandatory duty to work, with stiff new criminal penalties for "deadbeat," "truant," or "under the table" workers?)