[croon]

Giving money to retirees, giving medical care to poor people, having an FDA controlling what companies are able to sell that might harm the public (long or short term), and other regulatory organs are not economically viable either. Should we abolish those?

"Free market" might be a fun catchphrase, but everything judged through one lens is extremely narrowminded.

[MichaelBurge]

My opinions: Abolish social security, abolish medicare, keep the FDA but allow unapproved treatments clearly marked as such(possibly require signing a document confirming they know it's unapproved, or require them to file some paperwork with the local government in order to allow unapproved treatments). Of course, you'll never actually get elected advocating the first two, since the elderly have a stranglehold on politicians.

A more electable opinion: Allow people to invest their government-mandated retirement accounts however they want: SS is required to be invested in treasury bonds, which are not what I would invest in.

We don't need the government propping up the news companies, either. Professionals can stay informed to issues relevant to their work by subscribing to a trade magazine. Local communities often congregate at a church or similar(abolish tax exemption for churches, while we're at it), and that's as good a place as any to talk politics or gossip about celebrities.

For purely factual local community items requiring action(new sidewalk repair ordinance requires 30% of houses to replace their sidewalk trees, there's an upcoming mayoral election, a real estate investor just bought the last empty lot in the city and is building a huge apartment complex, etc.) can be reported by the government through the city or county websites, or by mailing notices to everyone.

I also wouldn't mind a government-operated television channel, intended for government matters(the president making his state-of-the-union speech, results of elections, warnings about emergencies, a brief summary of recent Supreme Court rulings as they happen, etc.).

[vertex-four]

Let the people die, woo!

Literally the entire point of a safety net for individual people is to prevent people from falling into despair and dying (of starvation or illness) due either to poor decisions or pure chance. To remove said safety net is to say that you value having a bit more money over people's lives - you would prefer that people die than lose money.

To put that a way you might understand - humans have an almost universally recognised right to food, water, shelter and medical care because these things are really, really important. To deny people those things is to say that those things are less important than having a little more money. You can't seriously be saying that.

[apalmer]

The parent can seriously be saying that. People believe different things, many people believe that they have no responsibility to other humans that they do not know. Further there are those that believe humans may be in someway responsible for other humans that they do not know, but that the government is absolutely the wrong vehicle to address this responsibility.

[Grishnakh]

Personally, I think for people like that, who think that "taxes are theft" and that they shouldn't have to pay for stuff they don't agree with, that we should allow them to opt out of paying taxes and the entire social contract.

In exchange, they give up all police protection. If someone wants to rob them or kill them, no problem, it's not a crime and the police won't intervene.