See reason to vote yea and Tucker's reason to vote yea: I'm on board with the federal government preventing states from enrolling people in something involuntarily. States should not be able to force people to have money taken from them and put into state-managed savings. BY THE EXACT SAME LOGIC, THOUGH, the federal government should also not be able to force people to participate in social security. When will the government decide they've taken enough? This isn't about whether or not saving is good - it objectively is very good to do - but rather is about whether or not government can mandate THAT you save and HOW MUCH you save, and then put itself in charge of those savings. Whether we're taking about state IRAs or social security, the answer is clearly no, that is not a justifiable role for the government to play. That is an infringement of the individual sovereignty over life, liberty, and property rather than the defense of it. It's tyranny. It's a tyranny nominally exercised in the best interest of people, to be sure, but as CS Lewis pointed out, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."