The Social Security "Trust" Fund

Every man, woman and child in America is a trust-fund baby.

Well, perhaps not every last man, woman and child. There may still be a common law freeman running around on the loose, here and there, somewhere in America. But by and large, the vast majority of Americans out there (including the author) are trust fund babies[1] born into one of the most pervasive systems of financial manipulation and control (and ultimately, enslavement) in world history: Social Security.

To paraphrase the famous Biblical quote, the foregoing may require wisdom to understand (Rev 13:18, 17:9), and it’s our purpose to help impart some of that wisdom in this series of articles. In fact, the Bible makes an excellent place from which to launch our investigations into the subject, as the U.S. media seems to go to considerable length to paint those who object to the SSN as religious “nuts and zealots,” completely detached from all sense of logic and reason. It is true, the Bible takes a thoroughly dim view of government census-taking (2 Sam 24, Luke 2:1), numbering (Rev 13:17-18), taxation (Judges 6:11, Matt 17:24-27, Matt 22:15-22), etc. But for those who truly understand the legal mechanics behind Social Security, their vehement opposition to the system extends far, far beyond mere religious or moral grounds. The $44 trillion monster [2] that is Social Security strikes at (and largely destroys) the very heart of freedom, liberty and the American character, for reasons we shall soon see.

First let’s review what a trust actually is, in legal terms. The essence of all trusts is divided title to property.[3] [4] Most people are familiar with the concept of “full” title to property, also known as “lawful”, “complete” or “perfect” title. This is – in essence – what is meant when one talks about owning a house, car, etc, “free and clear.” It means that title to the property is held in full by one person, and the title-holder maintains full legal control (and responsibility for) the property, including the right to use, control and dispose of the property. Many people believe that this is the only form of title which exists. It is not.

For instance, a man who owns a home free and clear (i.e., he has “full title” to it) may decide to limit his liability in the property by dividing his title and placing it into a trust. Should he decide to do so, the title to the home will be split between trustee – who will retain legal control over the property and the right to dispose of that property – and the beneficiary – who will enjoy the privileges of using that property, but who will have no right of control over it.

How many times have you heard the government talking to you about the various “privileges” it is “willing” to extend to you? Like the “privilege” of driving?[5] Or the “privilege” of operating a business? Or the “privilege” of hunting or fishing? All of which are activities that generally speaking – in the United States, at any rate – require a State-issued “license” of some sort (there are many more examples than just these). The key point here being that a license is defined as “a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort.” [6]

So how did America degrade into a condition where driving down a road, owning and operating a business, etc, all required some sort of special “permission” from a government technocrat? Is this “freedom”?

Returning back to our example of the home placed into a trust, once the home is in the trust, the original “perfect” title to the property is divided into two sub-components (i.e., “sub-titles”): legal title and equitable title. Legal title includes the rights of actual control and disposal of trust property. Equitable title includes the right of possession and use of trust property. The difference between legal and equitable title is similar to the difference between a landlord and a tenant: the landlord owns the house and has legal right to control and dispose (i.e., sell) the property if he desires. The tenant has the equitable right to live in, use and “possess” the house. Yet although the tenant lives in the house, he has no legal right to tear down walls or sell the property.

When a trust is created, one or more trustees are appointed to hold legal title to the property, and one or more beneficiaries are appointed to actually utilize the property in some way. The trustees effectively manage the property, while the beneficiaries enjoy the privileges associated with the use of it. It’s a hard and fast rule that trustees cannot enjoy the benefits of trust property, and beneficiaries cannot exercise any real control (i.e., ownership) over trust property. Whenever a single person holds both the legal title and the equitable title to a trust property, the “sub-titles” are once again re-united into a single “perfect” title, the trust is said to be “executed” and it ceases to exist.

[ To read more, subscribe to my new newsletter, the King's Bench Letter ]

---

[1] Does this explain the seemingly spoiled character of many Americans?J

[2] $44 trillion is probably a low estimate of Social Security’s total cost.

[3] It pays to pause for a moment and realize that the essence of all Communism is merely a simple variation on this theme: division of title to property amongst an entire community viz the instrument of the State; this will be of the utmost importance to understand when we come back to talking about the role Social Security plays in Communist Amerika.

[4] “The only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism”

-- George Orwell, 1984.

And in case you haven’t noticed yet, it’s the financial oligarchs who are the ones in control of the general consolidation towards socialism, fascism, Communism, etc (i.e., collectivism under any color or stripe); not the useful left-wing “reformers” who are little more than their unwitting servants.

[5] Some court cases reaffirming the fact that driving is a right, and not a government-granted privilege, include: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22, Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579, Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125, Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App. D.C., 287, 293.

[6] Black’s Law, 2^nd edition.