[imperfect_blue]

They're doing this because the expected value on lives saved is positive, not negative.

It's the exact same thing as "defund the police" except applied to the entire government. If policing is net negative, reducing it will save lives. If this government program is inefficient / worthless / net negative, cutting it or disrupting it will save lives.

[hobs]

When you just make stuff up its easy to prove your point, I agree. There's no reason to assume lives get saved because of deregulation, there's no evidence to that, and plenty to its opposition.

[imperfect_blue]

I'm not American and haven't done the calculus here. I'm just pointing out that from an outside perspective, what the American right is doing here is +EV in terms of American lives from their point of view, so it's perfectly rational.

If nothing else, the opportunity cost of a few hundred billion saved eventually, even if it's just a small fraction of US total government spending, can be used to save or improve many many many lives.

Hyperbole like "yeah murder more people its good because I can't tell what is good or bad" doesn't help.