If citizens actually had free choice in which government programs to fund as well as how much to contribute, the size of the US government (measured both in revenue and power over the people) would be 1/10 the size of today's utter monstrosity.
And if citizens literally had to cut a check at the beginning of every year, rather than pay through deliberately-obfuscated systems designed to hide the true cost of government, the size of government would be cut again by 90%.
Isn't that ironic, that people like you leave comments like yours and get moderated up like in this case while talking about the government in USA, a country, where people came to for freedoms?
Freedoms, as in freedoms from government.
The reason USA became the wealthiest country in the world in 19 century was capitalist free market and industrialization, which only became possible because the US was so free to do business in because the government was so limited, so small and so insignificant.
If you don't' see a way to perform a peaceful revolution in the United States, then you are advocating anarchy, in my opinion. The peaceful transfer of power has been a staple of the government and rights of US citizens. We are fortunate that when we cast our vote, we should not have fear of retribution for our vote (freed black panthers situation is noted). The winners do not round up the losers and take them out back to never be seen again.
If things are not going your way, convince enough people to
f things are not going your way, convince enough people to vote the way you want. (Not an easy thing, certainly.)
With enough money, it's all too easy. With enough cash, you can get people to support your agenda even if it's the polar opposite of their own best interests. We now have millions of poor and lower middle class Americans who vehemently believe that labor protections are bad, taxing the rich is "stealing", affordable health care is "socialism", that allowing companies to pillage pension funds how the Free Market is meant to work, and that gutting Medicare and Social Security is "good fiscal policy". Keep in mind that this is the same demographic that needs labor protections, as their jobs are generally easy to offshore, will never ever be rich enough to be taxed for $250,000 in income, could easily be bankrupted by an unforeseen medical expense, and will tend to really need the safety net that social security and medicare provide.
Well ... (Score:5, Funny)
Easy enough (Score:0, Insightful)
If citizens actually had free choice in which government programs to fund as well as how much to contribute, the size of the US government (measured both in revenue and power over the people) would be 1/10 the size of today's utter monstrosity.
And if citizens literally had to cut a check at the beginning of every year, rather than pay through deliberately-obfuscated systems designed to hide the true cost of government, the size of government would be cut again by 90%.
Too bad government isn't voluntary, or t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Isn't that ironic, that people like you leave comments like yours and get moderated up like in this case while talking about the government in USA, a country, where people came to for freedoms?
Freedoms, as in freedoms from government.
The reason USA became the wealthiest country in the world in 19 century was capitalist free market and industrialization, which only became possible because the US was so free to do business in because the government was so limited, so small and so insignificant.
Today, with gov
Re: (Score:2)
If things are not going your way, convince enough people to
Re:Easy enough (Score:2)
With enough money, it's all too easy. With enough cash, you can get people to support your agenda even if it's the polar opposite of their own best interests. We now have millions of poor and lower middle class Americans who vehemently believe that labor protections are bad, taxing the rich is "stealing", affordable health care is "socialism", that allowing companies to pillage pension funds how the Free Market is meant to work, and that gutting Medicare and Social Security is "good fiscal policy". Keep in mind that this is the same demographic that needs labor protections, as their jobs are generally easy to offshore, will never ever be rich enough to be taxed for $250,000 in income, could easily be bankrupted by an unforeseen medical expense, and will tend to really need the safety net that social security and medicare provide.