Because there will always be people less fortunate than me
Then give them your money. Face it, your support for government social programs has nothing to do with the people less fortunate than you but rather the people more fortunate than you because you want some of their stuff.
Because a slave doesn't have the freedom to pack up and leave whenever thay want to.
A relationship with the government is mandatory also, but if it makes you feel better you can think of it as merely indentured servitude. Work the first few hours of every day to earn the ability to make money in the rest of it.
Bollucks. You are missing the point. Facts are just facts, but it can lead to the wrong conclusions, as it is with this case.
That's not the same as "counter-factual" and the reality is that you just don't want to believe what the facts show. Granted that is quite common among liberals, but nonetheless is an issue.
But let me give American society a compliment: I admire the risk-taking and how much more easy it is to valorize knowledge. In Europe, we are much more risk-adverse, which indeed hinders innovation.
But we are told that a strong social safety net means more risk taking. Perhaps you were scammed?
So there is no absolute need for government at all.
There is a practical need unless you want to hire your own air force.
You say you are against all kind of taxations,
I never said that. In fact I told you exactly what sort of tax I think is best.
Living in a group, we are a group animal, means that you automatically give up some freedoms in favor of the group. So I could argue exactly the opposite. Could you give us your train o thought about this?
There is nothing wrong with being in and acting as part of groups and I never said otherwise. People had groups long before they ever had governments or laws. But all of those groups but one are voluntary. People can join and leave schools, corporations, religious groups, clubs, etc. at will. Government is the only one where individuals do not get their choice and therefore it must be as limited as possible.
In a democracy, people decide. So most people are in favor of this system.
Then you don't need a law to make your welfare systems work. All the people who like it will participate freely.
If people were objecting to paying taxes, then they would vote into power those people whom radically would slash taxes and governmental task with that. In Europe they don't, so the people must agree with it.
You're arguing for tyranny of the majority, which runs counter to human rights. If you're one of three people on a bridge and there's a 2-1 vote to toss you over the side, do you believe that's okay?
The funny thing is, you are more for the tyranny - to use that world once - of banks and economy.
Economics are a tyrant over all of us because we are all subject to the laws of physics. Banks are optional, but I find them useful and presumably many others do as well.
You said it yourself, certain courses at universities should be priced more because there are fewer job opportunities available, so more risk to the banks, so more interest and the object is to steer students away from those courses which you perceive less economical relevant.
I've already been through school, so the object from my perspective is to keep the government from 1) feeding a bubble that will have a huge detrimental effect on the economy like the housing crisis and 2) keep the government from wasting my tax dollars.
Secondly, don't confuse the freedom to do something with the means to do it on a large, or any, scale. I'm free to buy a Ferrari, but that doesn't mean I can demand someone else fund it. Likewise, freedom of speech doesn't mean I'm entitled to a radio station.
Third, what I perceive as economically relevant is really unimportant. It's the businesses hiring computer science majors instead of gender studies graduates who perceive certain courses as more or less economically relevant.
And there you go again "violate people's rights". So a bit of taxation isn't violating people's rights, but lots is?
No, any taxation violates people's rights, but it is a necessary evil and for that reason should be minimized.
And where are your legal prostitutes with health insurance and full employee protections?
I'm fine with legalizing prostitution and the market will set what their pay and benefits will be.
Wrong. Again. No surprise coming from you... if you have a way out of the system, you don´t need income.
How long can you survive without food or water?
That is your point of view and yours only, and there is no logical way to arrive at that point in a generally acceptable way.
Sure there is. Plenty of people have an income that does not include money coming from government benefits and the same for healthcare, particularly before the government broke the system.
On the other way it is very easy to argue that the government has to provide for my living,
They have to allow you to live, but you don't get to demand the property of others to do so.
That is taxpayers money wasted.... most Prisons, certainly in Prison nation USA, are also wasted tax payers money.
I agree in a lot of cases.
Having them run by private companies is effectively theft, since even if the prison is considered needed, providing them with profit is no government task. Talk about entitlements....
The government cannot do anything cheaply and having contractors (who often compete with each other) can often be more cost effective, even with profits.
It is, because people living there decide it is.
Again, you believe that decisions by the majority should be forced upon everyone?
If you don´t like to live in a country where the vast majority of people think that is the governments job, why don´t you pack up and leave instead of trying to force a minority opinion onto them?
Nothing stops the people who believe in a benefits system from setting one up without the force of law behind it. If so many people think it's a great idea, there's no reason to make it law anyway.
Also, in my last post I posed four questions and you only even attempted to answer just one. Your ideas are so intellectually bankrupt that they cannot hold up under any scrutiny, or you're just a charlatan. Maybe both.
Ah yes, that conservative value of "I got mine so screw you".
It's actually "I got some so what do you provide to me that makes it a good investment for me to give you some of it?"
Of course someone with this attitude is ignoring the fact that something catastrophic could happen in their life.
No it doesn't, but I am not so vain as to think that something catastrophic happening to me is catastrophic to everyone. In fact not that many people would be affected, ranging from catastrophic to minor inconvenience, so it makes no sense that everyone would be expected to invest when only a few will see any return.