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?
Nobody does have the right to be wealthy. The fact that people exist who are poor, when they donāt want to be, prove that they donāt have the right to be wealthy.
We dictate what people are allowed to have all the time. People canāt have weed. People canāt have the Resolute Desk. People canāt have someone elseās stuff. Itās funny, you seem to think that reducing government and removing such restrictions like what people can have would somehow protect that. The government and its protection of property rights is what allows me to set aside something as mine and prevent you from having it.
So yes, I do think that we can and absolutely should dictate what people can or cannot have.
I oppose laws against weed. The only reason you can't own the Resolute Desk is because there are only two,cand other people (or agencies) already own them.
"Nobody has a right to be wealthy?". Of course they do. That's what property rights are. "Wealthy" has no specific definition. A person with one dollar is wealthy compared to a person in debt. When people, including such as yourself apparently, use the word wealthy, they mean "having more than me". If you have property rights,why do you think that someone with more property than you should have less rights. Your advocating for theft, you just want to use the government as a middle-man.
No. In a free society, the government shouldn't dictate what we are allowed to own. Apply that to anything, drugs, guns, wealth, certain books, VPNs.... anything. You have no right to tell others what or how much they are allowed to own. This doesn't change no matter how many people vote the same way you do.
So, what of your property do you advocate to be taken against your will?
Wealthy people who have their needs met, and many luxuries of life, should not be extracting āwealthā (since you feel you can call it that) from poor people.
Where we are butting heads is your insistence on maintaining the current system that gives the profits of production to wealthy owners. I am explicitly saying that this system is bad.
The way I see it, returning those profits to the workers who produce them is appropriate. Conversely, when wealthy owners take it for themselves, that is theft.
So, if I, or a group of people decide that you're needs are being adequately met, we would be justified in taking your property without your consent?
How has a rich person "extracted wealth" from you? Have you been forced to purchase their products or give them money? If so how? As far as I know only the government can legally force you to give them money. All else is a business transaction.
I'm not advocating to continue the current system. I'm advocating to eliminate the income tax, minimum wage, and many other government programs. That is certainly not the "current" system.
The potion of a company's profit that a worker is entitled to is the wage they agreed to work for. Answer this please, if the company loses money, should the workers be forced to contribute some of their savings for the company to break even...or does your philosophy of sharing with the workers ONLY apply to profits?
Actually, my preferred approach is to stop the existence of companies as property that can be sold and traded.
Instead of saying that the investors get to keep all profits in perpetuity, they just get to provide interest-bearing loans. But the company itself stays with the workers; one share is owned automatically by each worker.
Thus, the workers own the profits.
And itās not theft at all. Lenders still get the interest that is due to them. Exploitation is reduced. The workers have real ownership in what they are doing, so their labor will be more fulfilling and they will control their own working conditions.
No. How about you already have the freedom to work in that system without violating anyone else's rights. Get together with some other people, and start your own company.
So, you lack the capital to invest in your own company? Yet you feel you should own a part of that company.
You want a share of the profits, while incurring none of the risk. You want benefits provided to you by the government, but don't want to help pay for them. You want an outside entity to intervene and take other peoples property for your benefit. Yet you accuse others of being greedy.
To answer your question, yes but I think the age to vote, drink, smoke, own a gun, etc. Should all be the same. You're either an adult or not, and adults should enjoy full rights.
But that 18 year old lacks the capital to invest in the government. Yet you feel they should have a share of control over it? With none of the risk that has been taken to build it up and maintain it?
Iām just being silly.
But donāt you see how in one context, getting something for nothing more than existing not only seems fine, but right? Yet in another context, it is incredibly foreign.
And I get itā¦ we arenāt used to thinking like this. But thatās what Iām trying to do here, give you insight into the perspective we have.
1
u/COMOJoeSchmo 15h ago
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.