cyberjerkXX

Double downing on it I see. Nice, makes my point.

No, it's Leftist rhetoric to use their principles against them. Leftists are trying to weaponize principles even though they don't share the same ones. They don't actually care about "hypocrisy" of their political opponents, it's a guilt tactic for political leverage.

You keep using the term Nazi but I don't think you actually know what it means.

I can gauge how much of an authoritarian you are with one simple question, is it immoral to privately own the means of production?

The same political groups that support hate speech laws are now looking for support from the freedom of speech groups? That sounds like a temporary alliance at best. They aren't going to support you long term because they know leftists are authoritarians of a different color. AKA your rhetoric isn't going to work because you have no principles and they do.

"No Snowflake in an Avalanche Ever Feels Responsible" You're right - we need to cut more. We'll save more lives if the US government stops the rate at which it is currently spending. The interest on our debt is currently larger that our military budget. The government can sell bonds to cover some of this debt but when it doesn't have money to cover mature bonds it needs to sell more bonds at a higher interest rates. It makes the deficit worse. The fed will respond with printing more money causing inflation. Inflation hurts the middle and lower classes the most. You either make massive cuts, or burden your productive wealth creating classes with taxes. We have a massive SPENDING problem.

Keep an eye on Rocket Lab. Peter Beck is legit.

All human relationships have inequalities. Attempting to use the government to destroy hierarchies is utopian bullshit. It always leads to worse outcomes than intendent because humans are imperfect. Intentions should never be the measure of success, only outcomes.

Chart go up

If you're a politician you can tax $500 from one productive member of society and redistribute $100 to four unproductive and lazy members. You get four votes instead of one. It's called job security.

Agreed - it also doesn't understand rights. A right to someone's labor is slavery. It's great to have robust social programs. However, they aren't a right - they are benefits. Changing the definition of rights is a trick to idea smuggle politics.

It's a voluntary agreement between people. It's not immoral to pay minimum wage to someone when they both agree. I find it to be immoral for the government to force themselves into the agreement.

Only ~1% of people in the US make federal minimum wage. ~58% of that 1% are serving related occupations who collect tips that are not counted in BLS wage data.

You need to use median wage - which is ~$24 for all occupations.