All financial institutions to be run by the federal government.

[ManusJustus]

TheRealMafoo said:

Sure, I will explain, so we can go around again with nothing other then just some arguments between us with nothing gained...

I am sorry you can't see the difference between protection and providing.

Providing is when you take the labor of one person, and use it for the sole purpose of benefiting another.

For example: people need to eat. protection would be to make sure laws are in place that don't restrict anyones ability to get a job based on uncontrolled circumstances. If your white, black, young, old, man, woman, whatever, you can not be denied employment.

Providing that protection is universal. I pay taxes, and I get that protection. Now, if the government just gave someone food (or anything for that matter), they would first have to take it from someone else.

The government taking from one man, for the sole purpose of giving it to another is wrong. It's a loss of freedom. If 10% of my salary goes to these kinds of entitlements, it means I am working in the service of others for 200 hours a year (or a little over a month). That's wrong.

Your argument that you don't want to pay for an F22 is a different argument. I assume you feel we should have some level of protection, and the people of this country should pay for it. And that it's the governments responsibility to collect funds for this purpose. The issue you have, is how efficiently we do it.

I also think the military spends way to much money. That's different then saying I don't think we should have a military at all.

 

Edit:

The government owns nothing. They have no ability to generate revenue. For the government to give anything to anyone, they first have to take it from someone.

Protection verse Providing:

Your definition of providing falls under everything the government does that you consider protecting.  When you pay taxes that go to the police force, your labor and wealth is providing a service for other people.  I can copy whatever argument you made and replace one word (from police to food or military to healthcare), and you would immediately go from approving of that statement to disaproving of it.

The only way your arguments makes any sense is if you dont want to live in a civilized society at all, so that you dont have to worry about your labor benefitting another person.  There is probably a large forest or national park near you where you can attempt to this.

Government Ownership:

You said the government owns nothing.  This is false, as the government owns everything.  The United States government owns everything from Florida to Alaska, and grants rights to its citizens (and even foriegn citizens) on what they can do with that land.  It has always been this way, from early civilization kingdoms to modern day democracies. 

If I own land in North Dakota and I want to join Canada, I am not free to do so because even though there is a piece of paper that the government gave me saying that I own this piece of land and what rights I have on it, the United States government owns everything inside a certain line of latitude because of a treaty it signed with Great Britian many years ago.  Thus, you dont own land anymore than the government says you own land, and you cant do anything with that land that the government says you cant, and you cannot transfer land from one government to another or from one person to another without approval of the government.

Your world view is off so I expect you to argue this point, so think about it this way: 

If I go to your house and ask you if you own it, you will say yes I own this house and the land it is on.  I then ask how do you know you own it, and you present me a document that says that you own it.  I say how did you get that document, and you say the government gave it to me.  I then ask to buy the property and you accept, so we go to the courthouse and are required to get the government's approval of the transaction.  So who really holds power over the land?