.jpg)
.png)
"We'll take care of you."
Four words that sound compassionate but have preceded more human suffering than almost any promise in history.
The idea of collective security—that a group, government, or system will provide for individual needs—appeals to our deepest fears. Who doesn't want a safety net? Who doesn't want to know that if everything falls apart, someone will catch them?
But here's what history teaches us, again and again: collective security doesn't eliminate insecurity. It spreads it.
The Math Problem No One Mentions
Collective security systems face a fundamental mathematical problem: they can only redistribute what already exists.
If 100 people produce 100 units of value, no amount of redistribution creates 101 units. The best possible outcome is that the same 100 units get moved around. The typical outcome is far worse—the redistribution process consumes resources, creates bureaucracy, and destroys the incentives that produced the 100 units in the first place.
Every collective security system in history has eventually run into the same wall: it consumed more than it produced until there was nothing left to redistribute.
The Incentive Destruction Problem
When you guarantee someone an outcome regardless of their effort, you remove their reason to try. This isn't a moral judgment—it's basic human psychology.
If studying hard and not studying at all produce the same grade, fewer students study. If working hard and slacking off produce the same paycheck, fewer workers try. If saving money and spending recklessly produce the same retirement, fewer people save.
Collective security systems don't just redistribute resources—they redistribute motivation. They take it from producers and... don't give it to anyone. It simply vanishes.
The Historical Evidence
Name a collective security system that delivered on its promises long-term:
Soviet collective farms promised food security—delivered famine
- Pension systems promised retirement security—delivered insolvency
- Public housing promised shelter security—delivered concentrated poverty
- Welfare systems promised poverty elimination—delivered multi-generational dependency
The pattern is so consistent it should be treated as a law of social physics: collective security promises eventually become collective insecurity realities.
Why We Keep Believing
If collective security fails so consistently, why do we keep trying it?
Because the promise is emotionally compelling, and the failure is delayed.
When a politician promises to "take care of" a problem, the promise happens now. The failure happens later—usually after that politician has left office. The emotional appeal of the promise always beats the statistical reality of the failure.
And there's another factor: the people who benefit from administering collective security systems have every incentive to expand them, even when they fail. Failure becomes an argument for more resources, not less.
The Alternative
Self-reliance isn't a utopian promise. It's a proven strategy.
Individuals who develop the talent of self-reliance don't need collective promises. They build their own security through:
Multiple income streams rather than single points of failure
- Skills that remain valuable regardless of economic conditions
- Networks of mutual support based on reciprocity, not redistribution
- Personal reserves that don't depend on political decisions
This doesn't mean abandoning community. It means building community on a foundation of capable individuals who have something to offer each other—rather than a collection of dependents all waiting for someone else to provide.
The Choice
Every society faces the same choice:
Build citizens capable of providing for themselves, who voluntarily help each other
- Build systems that promise to provide for everyone, until the systems collapse
History has rendered its verdict thousands of times. The only question is whether we're paying attention.
‍Read the book: The Talent of Self-Reliance: The Case for the Republic over the Misery of the Collective
.jpeg)
