I stated my opinion about the need for government to limit spending, since it seems like the list of people who need something never ends. I wasn't even suggesting the sort of thing I've read about in 'Free Market Revolution' (ie. the end of Social Security/Medicare/etc.).

Her response was that there are still people who need help and that we shouldn't let the fear of big government (which she described as 'AKA the greed of the wealthy') stop us from doing that.

I don't really care to get into a political debate with her or indeed anyone, as I feel like I've still got tons of reading and thinking to do on the matter. But I couldn't help thinking, how is fear of big government equivalent to the greed of the wealthy?

I can't help wondering if maybe people haven't thought it through all the way. The people who earned their wealth are probably not going to be in the poor house because of say, higher taxes--they're just going to adjust their business model or do business outside the U.S. where it's cheaper or less heavily regulated or both. The people who are in the middle or those who are poor will then lose out on the jobs the producers (not those who got their wealth by favors and pull) would otherwise have made were it not for government policies. The idea that we should all 'help each other out'--it doesn't seem to occur to people that even the low wage earners still have to pay their 'fair share' into Social Security and Medicare. If the goal is to help people 'in need' or who are poor, then why tax the very people you claim are 'in need'? The idea is to make their lives easier by making their lives harder, I guess. I'm not advocating that some people be exempt from that sort of tax while others aren't. I'm just using it to highlight the problem.

Really, the biggest problem that seems overlooked by this sort of thing is that no one asks your permission to take your money. The SS/Medicare taxes are mandatory. You can be thrown in jail for not paying. If this is really about helping people, then why would it be fair or moral to force people to help others? Wouldn't it be more moral if the help were offered voluntarily? It seems hypocritical to pat oneself on the back for 'helping those in need' if you did so by forcing everyone to hand over their money 'or else'.

I'm not really at a point where I am absolutely for paring down government to the size 'Free Market Revolution' suggests. I think achieving that goal would require a measured approach if we wish to avoid mass rioting by the looter types. (I mean, if a glitch at Walmart led to some of them cleaning out the store, imagine what would happen if all their food stamps were taken at once...) And helping people is still quite possible without the government. Often the government adopts a 'one size fits all' approach because they're too far removed from the nature of what they're dealing with. Local entities might be in a better position to address those who may need a hand up.

It's getting weird for me because I'm wondering if I've been converted to a radically different way of thinking than I was accustomed to. I always considered myself middle-of-the-road as far as politics, but much of that was due to religious influence. I probably leaned more to the left than to the right. I understand the middle ground is considered as kinda evil by folks in the Gulch, right? Well, I've seen the danger of black and white thinking firsthand. I think keeping an open mind to other possibilities than my own point of view is right and healthy. But being irrational doesn't really make sense, does it?

The fact is, when I look at things today, I start to see that I first started looking for work fresh out of college during the Bush years, yet I'd be terrified to be looking for work now. Of course, that wouldn't stop me trying. One thing I learned during my job search was that when a man gets hungry, he starts to hunt until he can eat. Once I'm hungry enough, I know I'll hunt that much harder for a means to support myself.

It's interesting. There seems to be an almost blind faith that the government can successfully decide what is best for everyone when it comes to 'helping those in need'. People have gotten into this habit of asking the government to wave its magic wand and fix whatever the problem is. The gun control issue is a prime example of that. So a mentally ill person shoots people. Premise: Laws can, apparently, successfully stop deranged individuals from engaging in criminal behavior. As if laws against murder have put an end to murder in this country or something. Government, do something!! Doesn't matter what, I just want to feel better right now! Time to check some premises here.

And this is, in my mind at this point, the problem with big government. People begin (or are indeed well along the road) to trust that the government can solve every problem, can absolve them of seemingly every responsibility. Well, the government asks for something in return--give up some more freedom, give up some more money, bend just a little further, and Government will take it from here.

Ah, what's the use in trying to figure it out? Who is John Galt?