pleased to meet you

[Root]

at some point, we have to be able to say "We're picking up trash on Tuesday. I know some of you want it picked up on Monday. Too bad"

That doesn't sound too bad.

So you don't advocate using violence against them?

Can we please define "too bad"?

[erowe1]

My interpretation of "too bad" in the first quote is, "Go ahead and take your business elsewhere."

And "not too bad" in the second quote means, "OK, I will."

As long as participation is voluntary, I'm fine with it. I'm trying to figure out if khasquakhas feels the same.

[khasquakhas]

I didn't ask what inventions came from it. I want to know what tangible societal benefit we gained from putting men on the moon.
You admitted earlier that you want to see an overall increase in the welfare of humanity. I'm calling you to the carpet.
Connect the dots. Explain to us how wrapping up billions of dollars in a rocket and shooting it into space increased the welfare of our society.

Splitting hairs. I'm arguing that the research that we invested in in order to land people on the Moon had many many new inventions, and that many of those inventions had a lot of beneift to people beyond putting people on the moon.

Like Johns Hopkins?
Or Harvard?
Which publicly funded universities are these that are doing most of the research?

I don't read medical journals. How does the FDA make it so I know which treatments are effective?
Do I not go to a physician when I need treatment? Am I not compelled by law to seek the opinion of no one other than a physician?
Does that physician not read medical journals?

Yes, I know that privately funded Universities like Harvard do a lot of research, and no I don't have any statistics regarding which does more, public or private, nor which has done more beneficial research, but there are many public universities that do incredible work, this is undeniable.

That physician you go to for advice may be well trained and highly qualified, but he can't do drug trials on his own, and even if he or his company could, who's to prevent him from prescribing the drug anyway? What if he has a vested interest in the drug?

Ethiopia? Um.... I'm pretty sure (based on the fact that it gets thrown in our faces ad nauseum) that you're talking about Somalia. Is that the case? Because we all have ready rebuttals to that one. But Ethiopia hasn't been on anyone's political radar since the 1980s.

yes, I meant Somalia. My bad.

So.... slight misunderstanding here. I was asking you to remark on two systems of governance whereby the state didn't enforce contracts because it did not claim that role. You gave me examples of the state refusing to enforce contracts even though it claimed monopoly on contract enforcement.
There is a stark difference - and I would hope you can realize that you're making my argument for me by showing the state's failures.

Ok, a bit of wiggle room here, I guess, but there are very few examples of what you're talking about, where the government does not take that role as its prerogative. I assume you're imagining a world where businesses enforce their own contracts through private security companies or a similar situation

[khasquakhas]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

That seems a little extreme don't you think? I mean, just because Ben Franklin said it, and it applied to a specific situation in the 1700's, doesn't mean it's dogmatically true. Would you really would give up ALL security if it meant giving up ANY liberty. What if I want to give up the right to murder people in order to enable a police force to prevent other people from murdering me? Do I deserve neither the freedom to murder NOR the protection from murderers?

If you don't feel the line is drawn in the right place, that's one thing, but you know that it has to be drawn

[khasquakhas]

Redistribution may be a strong word, but regardless of the word we use to describe the action, the reality is still the same.

You can choose to think in terms of collaboration, but is that an accurate word when people are forced to participate under the threat of violence?

I don't want to be forced to to chip in with you to purchase more missiles and drones to kill brown people and I don't think it is fair at all that I could go to jail if I refuse to. It saddens me that you do think this is fair. I would never ask a man with a gun force you to chip in with me to bail out a bank... doesn't that seem much more fair?

You recognize that the government promotes monopolies and it upsets you, yet you still want to force people to collaborate in a system that gives money to politicians so they can turn our money over to Wall Street or Monsanto. Why?

Everything you're saying is absolutely right. I don't want more missiles either. We make bad choices with the money we Steal (If you must think of it like that) from our citizens, but, when it comes down to it. They are OUR choices, maybe not yours specifically, but you can't deny we have an incredibly ignorant and complacent electorate.

The theory is still valid, but the social contract is gradually getting taken over by other interests while we say nothing, and let the media pit us against each other instead of working together.

[erowe1]

That seems a little extreme don't you think? I mean, just because Ben Franklin said it, and it applied to a specific situation in the 1700's, doesn't mean it's dogmatically true. Would you really would give up ALL security if it meant giving up ANY liberty. What if I want to give up the right to murder people in order to enable a police force to prevent other people from murdering me? Do I deserve neither the freedom to murder NOR the protection from murderers?

If you don't feel the line is drawn in the right place, that's one thing, but you know that it has to be drawn

If you don't consider murdering people an infringement on their liberty, then we're probably just talking past each other here.

The irony is, unless I'm totally mistaken about your view, that you actually do support murder, as long as the government does it.

[dannno]

What societal benefit was achieved by landing on the moon?

Velcro and ziplock bags. How much did that cost, again??

[Root]

That seems a little extreme don't you think? I mean, just because Ben Franklin said it, and it applied to a specific situation in the 1700's, doesn't mean it's dogmatically true. Would you really would give up ALL security if it meant giving up ANY liberty. What if I want to give up the right to murder people in order to enable a police force to prevent other people from murdering me? Do I deserve neither the freedom to murder NOR the protection from murderers?

If you don't feel the line is drawn in the right place, that's one thing, but you know that it has to be drawn

No, I don't. I don't want to give up any of my rights in order for you or anyone else to feel safer.

[dannno]

To me, promoting capitalism means enforcing contracts, creating standards, and building infrastructure (free trade is much easier with roads).

The problem with 'creating standards' is that the politicians create them and they have no idea how to run the industry that they are creating standards for - so a company like Monsanto says, "hey, you should make a 'regulation' that all grain factories are designed like ours, with the safety standards that we implemented required by every factory!" The problem is, those standards may be too much for a smaller grain factory that may not be able to compete after adding all of these unnecessary features to their factory and another factory may not be able to implement a more efficient process because it is not up to regulation, even though it may be safer and cost less.

The problem with building infrastructure is that they are going to pay their friend's construction company or union to do it, so it is going to cost too much and it may primarily benefit some subsection of large businesses that should be paying for it themselves.

If we are going to have roads built, it should be done at the local level, or as locally as possible. But what's wrong with private roads? I mean, look at where all these government roads have gotten us - You have all these liberals whining about how we all drive cars everywhere and then in the next breath when you say you don't like government, they ask who will build the roads? The fact is, if the free market needs a transportation route, the free market can and will build it, as long as the government is NOT in their way.

[dannno]

That seems a little extreme don't you think? I mean, just because Ben Franklin said it, and it applied to a specific situation in the 1700's, doesn't mean it's dogmatically true. Would you really would give up ALL security if it meant giving up ANY liberty. What if I want to give up the right to murder people in order to enable a police force to prevent other people from murdering me? Do I deserve neither the freedom to murder NOR the protection from murderers?

If you don't feel the line is drawn in the right place, that's one thing, but you know that it has to be drawn

If you want security, pay for it.

If your salary more than doubled overnight, since you wouldn't have to pay taxes anymore (including the inflation tax - have you learned about that yet?), would it be that big of a deal if you had to shell out $20/mo. for the police department to protect you and your property, $10 for fire department, and maybe $15 toward a national or state military/militia type organization? That way, if the police or military organization got too big and was intimidating to citizenry, people could choose to stop funding it.... which would result in a organizations that would help provide military or personal security that we all trusted and whose objective would be to continue to garner that trust. Then if there was a genocide overseas and we wanted them to go help, they could, because everybody was voluntarily donating and maybe the people who are donating WANT them to go help. Maybe they could setup a separate $5/mo fund or donation fund on the side to go help prevent genocide.

But right now what we have is a disaster - I don't want our military to do anything because I don't trust the people running it have our best interest or the people in the country they are helping's best interest in mind - they have big business interest in mind because they are the ones who helped the politicians in office to control the military. So if they are going to stop a genocide, they are doing it protect business interests of some business and it may result in even more people dying.

[specsaregood]

Velcro and ziplock bags. How much did that cost, again??

Velcro was not a product of nasa and predated the moon landing. It was invented by a swiss guy. That's just a popular untruth passed around the internet. The only claim nasa has to Velcro is in using it extensively and making it popular. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velcro

I don't know about ziplocks.

[fisharmor]

Splitting hairs. I'm arguing that the research that we invested in in order to land people on the Moon had many many new inventions, and that many of those inventions had a lot of beneift to people beyond putting people on the moon.

How is it splitting hairs? You made a gratuitous assertion - that the Apollo program had benefits to society.
I am asking for qualification of that. You (and practically everyone else outside libertarian spheres of thought) simply assume that this assertion is true.
I do not. Nor do most others here.
But we didn't bring it up: you did. Therefore, demonstrate how the Apollo program benefited society in general.

Yes, I know that privately funded Universities like Harvard do a lot of research, and no I don't have any statistics regarding which does more, public or private, nor which has done more beneficial research, but there are many public universities that do incredible work, this is undeniable.

How is it undeniable? Until you show that this is the case, it is just another gratuitous assertion. I gave you two examples from the best-of-the-best list of medical research groups. Here's a third: the Mayo Clinic.
All of them are private. All of them are household words.
Surely you can counter with at least five examples of household names in quality medical research that the state funds? I think that would qualify as "most".

That physician you go to for advice may be well trained and highly qualified, but he can't do drug trials on his own, and even if he or his company could, who's to prevent him from prescribing the drug anyway? What if he has a vested interest in the drug?

Stick to the topic. I'm not discussing theoreticals or what-ifs. I'm asking you to defend your gratuitous assertions. This gratuitous assertion of yours is that "the FDA ... makes it possible for people who don't read medical journals to know which treatments are safe and effective."

This statement of yours is based on a few underlying assumptions:
1) That information about safe and effective treatments is only to be found in medical journals
2) That the FDA somehow disseminates this information to people who do not read said journals

Based on further statements of yours I also surmise that you assume:
3) That new drug trials are paramount in delivering quality medical care
4) That individual physicians cannot be trusted to make judgments on new drugs outside of FDA pronouncements

and probably also:
5) No other system can exist outside of the FDA to address these assumptions.

But #5 isn't even important to me, because I flatly reject #'s 1 through 4. You need to demonstrate that these are the case.

My counter-positions are:

1) Medical journals are published by a cartel which is blessed by the state. If there was no state-blessed medical cartel, then medical information would self-organize freely and openly in the same manner that open-source projects do. The cost of medical care would therefore plummet.

2) The FDA does not disseminate information to anyone. All it does is keep products from the market, both by banning them outright, and by making the certification procedure so expensive that yes, individual doctors cannot do their own research.

3) New drug trials are only necessary because of intellectual property laws, another state-enforced idea which I oppose. It is the only reason there are four or five different varieties of cholesterol reducer, erectile dysfunction pill, and SSRI inhibitor. The market only needs one or perhaps two of each of these, but IP laws force companies who wish to enter the market to craft their own solution. This is a colossal waste of productive energy - this is all research that could be done on other areas, which isn't, and therefore reflects a level of societal welfare well under what our potential is.

4) If individual physicians can't read medical literature and trial studies of various sources, why do I need to see one? Am I not better suited, then, to make my own determinations on whether or not to take a particular medicine? What purpose does the physician serve, if not to recommend courses of action? If the FDA is doing such a brilliant job, why not simply eliminate physicians?

yes, I meant Somalia. My bad.

http://mises.org/
Type "somalia" in the search box, and educate yourself.

Ok, a bit of wiggle room here, I guess, but there are very few examples of what you're talking about, where the government does not take that role as its prerogative. I assume you're imagining a world where businesses enforce their own contracts through private security companies or a similar situation

No, I'm not imagining it. I'm asking you to investigate, find out that there have been societies where there either was no state or the state did not actively enforce contracts, analyze its system, and explain to me how that reconciles with your statement:
"We couldn't have property rights if government wasn't around to enforce contracts and prevent theft."

It has happened, and it's documented. So I want to know how you think it actually didn't happen.

[RJB]

pleased to meet you

...hope you guessed his name

[Cleaner44]

Everything you're saying is absolutely right. I don't want more missiles either. We make bad choices with the money we Steal (If you must think of it like that) from our citizens, but, when it comes down to it. They are OUR choices, maybe not yours specifically, but you can't deny we have an incredibly ignorant and complacent electorate.

The theory is still valid, but the social contract is gradually getting taken over by other interests while we say nothing, and let the media pit us against each other instead of working together.

So we agree that our government is corrupt. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I never entered into any social contract with you or even the other fine people here at the Ron Paul Forums. I was simply born, supposedly a free human, in the beacon of freedom in the world and I am told that I must comply with men with badges and fancy hats or else I may be beaten, imprisoned, fined, have my property taken and/or killed. I am given no choice in the matter other than to leave if I don't like the deal and even then, I would be required to continue paying taxes to the United States government.

I think one of the problems is that some good people, maybe someone such as yourself, prefer to think that our tax revenues are used mostly for good things like roads. This unfortunately isn't the case. Even if it were true, it would still be immoral to threaten people for money.

Why would I want to enter into a contract of giving my money to the military industrial complex or giving foreign aid to military dictators or bailing out Wall St banks?

Since I am forced to be a part of this social contract, I would at least like to know what is in it and would like to know if I can negotiate the terms. We can't pretend that the people in D.C. represent my interests in the contract because they are largely corrupt, as I think we agree. A contract that is signed with a gun to my head is not valid and I never signed any contract with socialists.

I would like to see us work together and that means that we do so in a voluntary fashion.

Threats and violence are not the answer to creating a better society or a more fair society if that is what you want.

The politicians have created a scam that preys on people's desires for good things and it pits them against each other. They are so good at this that they even have convince some people that violence is acceptable for the greater good. It is a scam. It is immoral and it doesn't work.

Do you think this system of force is producing more prosperity or less for the majority of Americans?

[dannno]

...hope you guessed his name

But what's puzzling me, is the nature of his game.

[jllundqu]

khas means well, but is largely struggling to tread water this cesspool of political ideology. khas seems to be stuck in the "Liberal vs Conservative" and "Democrat vs Repub". Simple fact is parties are useless. It's about individual liberty and natural rights versus people like you who would advocate taking away my rights (by force) in order to create "a more perfect world"... something that has never existed and never will.

Where do we get our rights? Answer that question and you've answered all the rest.

[eduardo89]

Minority rights needs to be in the social contract

Why do you believe rights derive from being a part of a group and not from being an individual? Do some individuals have more rights than other? If so, why and how do they get those rights? Isn't the individual the smallest (and most persecuted) minority? Who determines what groups get special rights?

[TER]

Hi Khas and welcome! You came for debate and you got it! Don't get overwhelmed! Just as you are passionate about restoring this nation and improving the lives of the citizens, so is everyone else here. In the little you have revealed about yourself so far, I'm sure you will find a lot of common ground with the other members here. Some are conservative, others libertarian, and even others anarchists. Our common vision here is in reducing the size and intrusiveness of the federal government and restoring our civil and financial liberties.

BTW, you mentioned Pussy Riot earlier. They were imprisoned not merely for their vocal dissent of the leaders there, but because they entered the most revered and holy Cathedral in all of Russia and defiled it. To you that may not mean much, but to the Russian people whose general consciousness still remembers the sacrilegious acts and persecution under atheist rule, they imprisoned them. Sort of like when you said "the garbage is picked up on Tuesdays, not Monday, too bad.' In this case, if you enter a place of worship in attempt to maliciously defile it, too bad, you go directly to jail.

[specsaregood]

Velcro and ziplock bags. How much did that cost, again??

Velcro was not a product of nasa and predated the moon landing. It was invented by a swiss guy. That's just a popular untruth passed around the internet. The only claim nasa has to Velcro is in using it extensively and making it popular. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velcro

I don't know about ziplocks.

I just checked, nasa didn't invent or have anything to do with inventing Ziplock either.

[kcchiefs6465]

I don't want to overwhelm anyone but there is a thing or two about Ethiopia, with regards to Somalia, that I was going to say.

It was mainly about Ethiopian collusion with the United States to target Somalia; the rising of Al Shabab from a largely unknown organization into what it is today as the result; and the blowback caused by a foolish foreign policy.

I'll drive this point home: You can't spread democracy with a bomb. The people must strive for it themselves. Those bad guys who you think we are going after for "humanitarian reasons" were CIA contacts and received hundreds of thousands of dollars previously.

Obama is a war criminal. Look up Angoor Adda, Pakistan; Granai, Afghanistan; Al Majalah, Yemen; Khataba, Afghanistan; the assassination of Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki; the hundreds of children, thousands of civilians killed.

He expanded Bush's policies and made them acceptable. (as evidenced by your statement of you'd vote for him again)

Sigh.

[eduardo89]

BTW, you mentioned Pussy Riot earlier. They were imprisoned not merely for their vocal dissent of the leaders there, but because they entered the most revered and holy Cathedral in all of Russia and defiled it. To you that may not mean much, but to the Russian people whose general consciousness still remembers the sacrilegious acts and persecution under atheist rule, they imprisoned them. Sort of like when you said "the garbage is picked up on Tuesdays, not Monday, too bad.' In this case, if you enter a place of worship in attempt to maliciously defile it, too bad, you go directly to jail.

Especially considering Stalin blew the Cathedral up and it was painstakingly rebuilt after the fall of the atheistic communist regime.

[heavenlyboy34]

To me, promoting capitalism means enforcing contracts, creating standards, and building infrastructure (free trade is much easier with roads).

I agree that a constitutional republic is the way to go. Minority rights needs to be in the social contract

Ah, that mythical "social contract". That's one of the most amusingly absurd theories of civics EVER. The pseudo-intellectual SC theorists have yet to prove their thesis, yet continue claiming it to be true. If it weren't so tragic in practice it would be even more funny.

[pcosmar]

Like, I voted for Obama twice and I would do it again, but I don't agree with him about everything.

I don't like him at all,,,
But in retrospect, I'm sure we are better off than we would be if Romney had won.

A sad state of affairs indeed.

[khasquakhas]

Thank you for the warm welcome everyone, but this conversation is getting a litte bit broad. I'm going to migrate over to other discussions

[Cleaner44]

Thank you for the warm welcome everyone, but this conversation is getting a litte bit broad. I'm going to migrate over to other discussions

I am glad to see you came back.

I am disappointed that you are bailing out on the debate that you asked to have.

I look forward to you learning more from an extended stay.

Don't worry about that strange feeling you had yesterday, that is just your mind grappling with the fact that you advocate violence while thinking you are a peaceful person. It can be a bit uncomfortable and you will feel a slight pressure, but you will be better for it if you just open your mind wide. We won't even bill you, the service is free of charge. Do you know your blood type?

[georgiaboy]

Thank you for the warm welcome everyone, but this conversation is getting a litte bit broad. I'm going to migrate over to other discussions

pleased to meet you, too, khas. wise decision.

Don't let that buzzsaw you ran into yesterday run you off from the rest of the forums.

We have some expert debaters around here that'll test your mettle real quicklike if you ask them, and even if you don't sometimes, especially if you advertise as being a good one yourself. If you're interested, this is a great place to hone those skills and learn the tactics, as well as actually learn about the philosophies that shape your positions on issues.

Of course, advertising yourself as a two-time Obama voter here was like pouring honey over yourself in a clover field, so maybe that's what you intended.

Regardless, welcome again - looks like you survived your baptism by fire.

[libertywanter]

Hello Khas, I am a new member to this site myself. I am most definitely on the opposite side of your way of thinking, but do admire that you are willing to have conversation with those opposing your views. If you keep an open mind I think you should really gain something from this site. I have learned much here in a very short amount of time, I think there are some very intelligent members on this site. Like I said keep an open mind, I tell myself that all the time, even though sometimes it is hard to do, if more people especially the people in government roles would learn to keep an open mind and not be so radical on either side, things probably would be much better than they are now. The problem is though extreme views usually bring extreme emotion from the other side. I get very extreme emotions at what the left is always pulling.

I am sure many will disagree with me on here, but I can meet you part of the way and say I do believe we need some government and some taxes, but just for the basic functions a government should provide. Which in my opinion would be national defense, law enforcement (not a fan of laws, but some are definitely necessary) and if I thought about it for a while maybe a few other things. I will put some real thought into what I think government should do and get back with you.

I really like what danno said above, about getting rid of the tax system and paying directly for what we need or want. That really makes sense to me, but think that is only wishful thinking as most people would probably never agree to it, simply because they couldnt understand it.

As far as you khas saying government is responsible for many inventions and that is a reason to continue on like we are I believe is totally ill perceived. Yes the government may have had its hand in some good inventions, anything the government does is totally inefficient. If the government invented a new pair of shoes for example it would cost taxpayers 100 million and the shoes would not be quality. If private industry invented the same type of shoe it would cost 20 million and be top of the line, and wouldnt cost taxpayers a dime. Why would private industry do this? Money of course, that is what everything boils down to, Money. And private industry will make better products and invent products all on its own because of this thing called Money, and all at no cost to taxpayers. Government has no business in technology, it needs to stay out of the way and let the private industry prosper. I cant tell you what the government has actually invented or made besides debt, but anything that did come from government was only stumbled upon by a fortune of taxpayers dollars.

And also to the point danno made above, if the government didnt take our dollars there would be so much more to go directly to what we need and not be wasted or misdirected by the government middle man. If there is a need for something, it will be created, government is not necessary to tell us what we need to invent.

And I would never suggest giving up rights to feel safer, when rights are gone they are usually gone forever.

Anyways welcome and I hope you find what you are looking for here.

[khasquakhas]

Sorry All. Been really busy with this project at work, I'm not running away, but I just wanted to be a little more clear, now that I've been able to compose my thoughts a little.

I've been able to surmise that most of you are really, really into a small central government. I really respect that position, and it seems reasonable considering its many, many evils. I'm getting the impression from a lot of you, especially Cleaner44, of a government that is this giant, sinister behemoth, and if your only experience with it is the news, that's reasonable. We have been, and are still, a part of some horrifying atrocities. If that were my impression of government in general, I too would be extremely hesitant to trust it, maybe even willing to cast it off and try something different.

However, I am a person who avoids moral absolutes. I care not at all about ideology, and I have to confess a personal bias. Let me tell you a story.

When my first child was born I worked at a barely above minimum wage job. We didn't have the extensive support system that allows some parents to both work. So I had to make enough to support me, my wife and son. This is when I began to feel trapped, like I'd be a mere frycook for decades. I didn't want that to happen, but I could barely afford rent, let alone college. Enter the Hope Scholarship and Pell Grant.

I know that the Hope Scholarship is state funded and paid for 100% of my tuition, but without Pell it still wouldn't have been possible, because I would have had to work two jobs without the $5000 a year that Pell dolled out. That was 4 years ago. 5 Months ago I graduated with a Bachelor's in Mathematics and 2 months ago I was hired by a multi-billion dollar software company. I couldn't have done it without my amazing wife, who sacrificed her education for the sake of her family, but it wouldn't even have been conceivable without gov't help, so when the question arises whether government CAN be a force for good, I cannot be swayed.

So anyway, that's my perspective. I think it's good we have conversations about the role of government, or even about the existence of government, but like you said, what's really important is trying to use policy to improve people's lives.

Yes, those Pell dollars that were given to me were taken from somebody else, by force when necessary, but I'll be paying income taxes for the first time in my life this year. Some of that money will go to things I don't agree with, but some of it will go to helping another little guy get his own really big leg up.

All I'm saying is, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[Natural Citizen]

Perhaps the most unfortunate shortcoming is the fact that too many who profess for less government don't fully understand what government in it's current state actually is as opposed to what it should actually be in it's historic state. Specifically this demograph would do well to better understand the concept of citizenship itself. You know? All things of, by and for and applicable in a manner in which the people are representative of themselves. As it is and in the direction we're headed we'll surely trade in our Constitution and Bill of Rights for a terms of service agreement conforming to this newly accepted repatriation of representation which comes as a result of the hijacking of those documents by common entities whose model is purely one of growth and often contradicts that of survival. Survival is a natural phenomenon and one reserved for natural citizens. If these citizens are no longer relevant in the political processes that are placed into infrastructure for their very survival as a nation of people then surely they'll not have a government representative of their interests. This is what "less government" genuinly means when you ask a person who is supportive of this corporate hijacking of our citizenship, representation, political processes and yes...government itself.

And the fools will love themselves for it.

[Dary]

All I'm saying is, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Here's the thing though Khas:

The very policies that big government (our big government) supports, creates, and defends, contributes to our poverty. Big government makes us poor. I mean really, look where we are now. $17 trillion in debt?

A system which requires an intrusive and expensive collection agency to insure a steady source of income, starts off with a huge disadvantage. It cannot be anything but inefficient. It has already taken 2 steps back in its attempt to take 1 step forward. But the IRS is simply one example. Big government is wrought with inefficiencies and expensive corruption notwithstanding the IRS.

I believe that a smaller, less expensive government would contribute greatly to our prosperity. One in which an individual's choice of last resort (Hope, Pell) wouldn't even be needed since many other options in a much richer, wealthier society would exist.

We are not debating an open ended theory or argument. It's a closed loop system where actions have consequences. In other words, what goes around comes around. You allude to this same sort of idea in your post above. I'm saying that the same goal with even better results can be achieved without all the coercion, inefficiency and resultant loss of life and liberty.

Libertarian Harry Browne used to say that the one thing government was really good at was breaking your legs, handing you a pair of crutches and then saying “see it it weren't for us, you wouldn't be able to walk”.

Welcome to the forums.