Is it moral to use government funds?

The other day in my political research class the proffesor went on another rant about how much he despises libertarians and the right.  After a little back and forth about libertarinism in general he made the the following statement:

If libertarians really believed in their ideas, why would you attend this school?  Why would you accept Social Security or go to a public high school.  If you are true to your words you should not utilize any government service what so ever.

My reply to him was: "So what am I supposed to do about the roads?"

This later got me to think about the morality of accepting government funds.  I went to a public high school, drive on government roads all the time, pay taxes, and I attend a public college.  I have obviously used, and have benefitted from government funds.  For being so anti-state, I sure do use it a lot. 

This has always made me feel ucomfortable but I accepted it because school, and roads are for the most part monopolized  by the state.  However, I asked myself if I were out of school working full time and had a family that needed my income, would I take unemployment benefits if I were to lose my job all the sudden?  Would I apply for food stamps?

After some thinking I decided that I would take both, just as Rothbard and Walter Block have decided.

Sen. Paul and Sen. Lee on Averting a Government Shutdown

Sen. Rand Paul discusses his bill which ensures Social Security, interest on the debt, and soldiers' salaries are funded regardless of whether or not a debt ceiling compromise is made:

Senator Lee explains that the U.S. has enough revenue to pay Social Security recipients whether or not an agreement on the debt ceiling is made:

America Needs to Take Social Security Lesson from Chile

In the current Social Security debate, the left often attempts to label those in favor of private accounts as loony. Typically, supporters of the Social Security status quo use scare tactics in efforts to convince the American people that private accounts would be “risky” by “gambling your Social Security on Wall Street.” President Obama pledges that he will “continue to fight to make sure we do not jeopardize the future of Social Security with risky schemes that leave our seniors vulnerable."

In America, how risky would private Social Security accounts be? For this answer, we can look at the country of Chile for some insight. Chile once had a Social Security system similar to what the United States has now. Prior to 1981, Chile’s Social Security system faced a crisis— its Social Security deficit rose to about 25 percent of the country’s economic output. Chile’s efforts to “fix” Social Security by rising the retirement age and cutting benefits proven unsuccessful. Finally, in 1981, Chile emphasized individual liberty by allowing workers the choice to invest in personal Social Security accounts.

In Chile, 93 percent of workers have voluntarily chosen personal accounts rather than government controlled accounts. On the other hand, Congress has trapped all American citizens in the compulsory government run Social Security with no other retirement savings options. Those Chileans who opt for a personal account contribute 10 percent of their wages to one of 20 pension funds of their choice. Unlike the United States, Chileans are able to pass the remaining balance in their pension funds to loved ones upon their death.

Congressional Pay Grows 15 Times Faster Than Social Security Checks

The Senior Citizens League is outraged.  Turns out, Congress raises its own pay 15 times faster than it raises the money paid out in Social Security:

Seniors who retired in 1990 with the average Social Security benefit have seen their annual payments increase by just $4,967 over the past 20 years. During the same time period, members of Congress have awarded themselves pay raises totaling $77,400 per year – a whopping 1,458 percent more than seniors.

It's not surprising, really that Congress is more interested in taking care of itself than it is in giving money to old people which it has already spent on other projects.  In response, a bill has been introduced to actually cut congressional pay by 5% next year -- the first pay cut in about 80 years.  That's a good start, I suppose (though the $4.6 million it will save in the first year is a mere drop in the bucket of the yearly budget -- let alone the national debt).