>My assertion is that compulsory schemes can succeed.

Of course, this depends on your definition of success. I assert that mandatory participation in the redistribution of private property from one private party to another is unconstitutional. In this I side with Madison and Locke over Hamilton.

>You can give as many unsuccessful examples as you please, but all that does is raise the question why some compulsory schemes succeed while others fail.

>A cynic might assert that successful schemes are adequately funded and supported by the community so that trying to weasel out is unacceptable, while unsuccessful ones are characterized by undermining or deferment of obligations, often to satisfy an electorate.

If I accept the premise that mandatory confiscation and redistribution of wealth is Constitutional then I agree that the Australian, or Chilean or British or Singaporean models are superior to the United States. I would argue that their success has more do to their privitization rather than the mandatory participation. After all, even if SS monies weren't succeptible to Congressional raid, SS would still have much less return than the partially-private examples and would still be facing insolvency due to demographic realities.

>In which case that's a story about populations and the politicians they prefer, not confiscation or any of the other rhetoric.

I understand that people get the government they deserve and that the US fully deserves the mess it's put itself in.