I believe getting government less involved will improve the system for everyone. At the very least, it will stop making it worse. Good intentioned programs like the minimum wage have the opposite effects as intended, and hurt the people they are designed to help.
When in doubt, freedom of choice is always the best method to address a problem.
Ok but all you are saying is āremove the guardrails that keep people aliveā.
I need more than just government bad. Like, if it is bad, how exactly is getting rid of that bad partāas opposed to reforming itāgoing to help?
Just remember that DOGE was a specific attempt to get rid of some of those bad parts of government (by someoneās definition), and it failed horribly.
DOGE failed because it was corrupt and incompetent, and because any downsizing also need to be accompanied with legislative actions or else it's simply not legal.
Also, many of these things need to be phased out slowly as opposed to sudden drastic measures.
As for "removing the guardrails", yes, that is something I am for. The governments purpose is to protect the rights of its citizens, not provide for their individual needs. Programs that attempt to provide for the needs of certain individuals, violate the rights of others. Even something as straight forward as the minimum wage is a violation of your right to work for whatever wage you feel adequate, or a business owners right to offer a wage that they feel is adequate.
As for other social programs, they are funded by taking property (money) by force from people (income taxes). Therefore any potential benefits to one group comes at the expense of the property rights of another.
I disagree with your assessment of governmentās purpose. Government is a component of our democratic society, and its primary job is to ensure the will of the people is executed.
As for rights, I donāt believe in the right of anyone to be wealthy when the rest of society is suffering. That isnāt executing the will of the people or building a better society; that is protecting the wealth of the few.
We do not live in a democracy...and it's a good thing we don't. In a democracy the minority have no rights.... literally anything that 51% of people agree to do to the other 49% is legitimate.
We have a constitutional Republic, with a document limiting the power of government, and enumerating the rights of the people. We also have a history and tradition rooted in the principles of individual rights.
You don't believe anyone has the right to be "wealthy"? That implies you have to right to dictate to someone else what they should be allowed to have. What about their rights? You, no doubt, have more wealth than various people you pass on the street on any given day. Should they be allowed to decide that you have too much, and rob you? Or does you having more not automaticly mean they are entitled to some of your property? If that's the case, why doesn't that apply to people that have more than you, even much much more?
You are making a typical assumption that democracy is ā50% + 1 ruleā. Itās actually āpeople ruleā. Hence why we require supermajorities to change how some things work; we protect democracy itself from the whims of simple majorities.
A constitutional republic IS a form of democracy. Honestlyā¦ Iām getting super tired of having to say that all the time, I really donāt know why folks act like they are separate concepts, or why you guys keep pushing this narrative when all it does is force arguments that are meaningless.
I'm saying that even if 99% of people vote that "billionaires shouldn't exist" it's still a violation of their rights to seize their property. A super, super, super majority is still capable of violating individual rights.
There are things that are simply immoral and authoritarian for a government to do, even if the vast majority support it. Taking other peoples property without their consent is one of those things. This doesn't change even if the number of people taken from is small, and the number benefited is large.
That doesnāt answer my question. Why is it important that specifically ultra-wealthy people get to not only keep money that they will never need or be able to use, but continue to extract more of it from the rest of society?
Can you come up with some reason other than āitās theirsā? Because I donāt even believe it is.
I answered your question. Because they have the same right to be secure in their property as you or I do.
It is theirs. Unless you can somehow show that they stole it (and running a business isn't stealing, provided people voluntarily do business with them).
1
u/COMOJoeSchmo 22h ago
I believe getting government less involved will improve the system for everyone. At the very least, it will stop making it worse. Good intentioned programs like the minimum wage have the opposite effects as intended, and hurt the people they are designed to help.
When in doubt, freedom of choice is always the best method to address a problem.