Maybe so, maybe not. At any rate, there are a sufficient number of people who, for one reason or another, cannot adequately provide for their own retirement security, and there is nothing inherently objectionable about "we" through our elected government, providing a degree of security for those people.
At the federal level? There is PLENTY that is inherently objectionable - If nothing else at all, the cudgel it gives the fed over the states, and the unlimited blank check the fed can claim, not to mention the authority that comes with it to meddle in lives.
To be sure, we must take care of the elderly, the crippled, the widow... There is nothing inherently objectionable in that. But in most definitions of charity, and certainly in the Judeo-Christian definition thereof, that charity begins in the family. And then is upon the town. And then upon the Church. Removing that responsibility from where it belongs has consequences you may not have considered.
Secondly, the inherent choices and costs are best determined locally - not by some bureaucracy 3000 miles away. And the exercise of thriftiness in the execution thereof, without an overhead, is nearly built into locality.
And likewise the state - Every dollar sent to the general fund in Washington is a dollar not available to the state, or locality, or family.
There is plenty to object to.
You may not agree with that, but that is just a policy preference disagreement, and if you wish to prevail, then you will need to persuade enough people to your position.
No, it is a separation of powers disagreement. and a moral imperative.
If you cannot, then you either accept the policy choices of the majority, or you find someplace else to hang your retirement hat.
Democratic societies suck that way, and it is incumbent on the rest of us to suck it up, or exercise the power of the feet to find greener pastures.
If it were where it belongs, one
could vote with their feet - and find another STATE.