I told you I didn't think that was accurate - and that I was making an effort to make sure it wasn't accurate. You ignored that. So I replied with sarcasm. You missed that.
The state has an interest in providing for the health and education of its citizens. How and to what extent is always debatable. You apparantly want to say that any extent is too much - a limitation on your freedom and a theft of your wealth. So I'll go back to my earlier examples. How do you stand with drugs and pornography? Is it an imposition on your freedom and a theft of your wealth for the state to take a position on these things instead of letting the market and free choice rule? Or maybe you care only about your freedom and not the freedom of those who enjoy those things or who don't want to pay to try to prevent their enjoyment?
As for the rest of your nonsense - you'd better read a little more history. Societies which don't provide jobs for their citizens don't do very well. You have faith in our system because jobs have always been available to you. That's not always been the case - and certainly is not the case for many people even now.
Nor did I ever say jobs at any cost. Quite the contrary. Try reading my post instead of venting your prejudices.
I'll toss and turn all night.
You really are rotten. "Let them eat cake" describes you.
"The State" - you forgot to capitalize it, probably a typo.
How do you stand with drugs and pornography?
Did some drugs as a youth, grew out of it. Never was interested in pornography. State intervention had nothing to do with it. A decent upbringing by my parents did.
As for the rest of your nonsense - you'd better read a little more history. Societies which don't provide jobs for their citizens don't do very well.
Old Soviet Union joke: "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work."
You have faith in our system because jobs have always been available to you.
What makes you assume that?
Have we met?