> My point is that the government should never have been given the power to redistribute wealth the way it does today. It has not always had this power. And had the constitution been slightly clearer, it would not have this power today. No amount of lobbying would change that.
Half the founding fathers owned slaves, and all of them agreed to count humans as 3/5 of humans in order to grant slave states 5/3 the representation of non-slave states. I'm not particularly concerned with their intentions, and I also find it strange that you'd look to them as some sort of beacons of liberty.
I read your comment about wanting states to have more power and I agree with that, but that's not the reality we live in. If we're looking at policies that are a way forward, realistic support for the poor is going to have to come from states first before we remove federal support. Meanwhile, it seems you're just fine with letting poor people starve to death, so maybe state's rights isn't your opinion that's most concerning at the moment.
> It is my fundamental liberty that is being violated by forcing me to contribute to the maintenance of strangers. I would like the freedom to opt out of this mandatory insurance scheme.
Well if you don't think you benefit from society, then you lose nothing by removing yourself from society. There are plenty of right-libertarian paradises like checks notes Sudan where you can go live out your self-reliance fantasy without having to persuade the rest of us to participate. I'll welcome you back when you need old-age care and want to rely on our tyrannical medicare.
It's a bit strange that the largest forms of welfare are corporate welfare, yet people concerned about welfare redistributing wealth always seem to target redistribution to poor people. You're concerned about food programs for minimum-wage Walmart workers taking your hard-earned money when the entire SNAP program cost about $57.1 billion in 2018, while the corporate benefits to the GM corporation alone ran between $50-80 billion and we can't get a more exact number because that's not even transparent.
> It's not compassionate to force your view of compassion on others. It's tyrannical. In the vein of "If you're against gay marriage, don't get gay married": if you want to help people, contribute to charity. Don't force your views on others.
You're trying to present it as if any law that isn't unanimously agreed upon is tyranny, but that's just unavoidable--any attempt to influence the laws is enforcing your will on others. That includes your wanting to remove welfare programs. Other people want those programs, you want to enforce your will on them by removing them. Tyranny!
Tyranny is when a single person or small group of people have absolute authority. You don't get to expand that words meaning to use as a scare word for any policy you don't like. When a representative democracy chooses laws, that's just what the beacon-of-freedom constitution you like intended.
I tend to think that corporations holding people's basic needs like food and shelter ransom unless they do what the company wants is a more obvious form of tyranny than the miniscule portion of your taxes that go to feeding people.