>>890705Like I said, I'm not for minimizing the State. And from my position, it's not their money we're "forcing them to be efficient with." Money is a community asset. Money means nothing if everyone doesn't support it, both philosophically, and materially with their own labor and economic behavior. If enough people stopped respecting the dollar and started using clam shells, the dollar would cease to be worth anything on its own and clamshells would take its place.
I'm also not calling for forced quality, forced outcomes, or a destratification of society. That's basically Socialist or Marxist, which is garbage and does not work. We are a hierarchical species so we MUST have "winners" and "losers". We must have leaders and followers. We must have an upper class and a lower class.
If someone studies their ass off for 8 years to become a skilled doctor or lawyer or engineer, and they're good at what they do, they absolutely deserve to be rewarded for that. They should certainly have a cozier life than someone who grows flowers for a living at a small-town florist shop.
I'm just saying they should not be able to get so far ahead that their kids and grandkids never have to work while the florists' kids lose out on equal opportunities to catch up. Those hard years of work the doctor or lawyer or engineer put in to become wealthy should be an option for everyone. The more wealth accumulates at the top, however, the less there is at the bottom to incentivize harder work down there.
There's little reason to go to college and work hard for 8 years if you're just gonna end up unemployed or making less than a truck driver because some 100 Ive League kids all get to have $500k starting jobs because their granddaddies all worked for companies that boomed after the Great Depression.
I'm not surprised by our agreement, though. We probably have the same goals in mind, but I believe the State is vital to enacting those goals, while many believe the State is a barrier.
