A) I didn't say that the government shouldn't be funded so I don't know where your getting that. I said the government should not take money from some people and then give it to others. I think the government should fund a military, and a court system, and a police/fire department force.
B) Having insurance isn't even a close comparison. I object to the government transfer of wealth on the grounds that it isn't a choice that people are making, it is done by force. Purchasing insurance is a transaction to which both parties agree to (other than mandated insurance in some cases).
C) The government's job is to protect people from force/fraud. This includes from other countries (via a standing military) and our own (police/fire departments and judicial system). The government's job was not originally, and should not be, to take money by force from some people (which seems remarkably similar to stealing) and give it to others.
D) Social Security and Medicaid/care are HORRIBLE programs both in principle and in practice. People should be able to choose for themselves how to save for retirement, the government is not intended to be a babysitter. The same goes for Medicaid/care. It is not the governments job to take my money and give it to other people in order for them to have medical care. In practice both of the programs are sending our economy into hell. Listen to any of the congressional meetings on either program or on the national debt. Every who has looked into the programs has been pleading for something to be done.
E) Relentless selfishness has nothing to do with anything I have said. I don't think that we should forget about our poor and disenfranchised. I think that people should help one another. I just don't think the government should have any role in it, rather it should be voluntary.
Here are a few questions regarding the above. These are meant to be serious and would need to be answered given your stated beliefs in the role of government. I'll ask questions about each of your points, marking each set of questions using the same letter as you did to indicate that they are targetted towards that particular point.
A) When you state that "I said the government should not take money from some people and then give it to others," what is your view of the role of the courts? As a future lawyer, it appears that someone could read this particular view as stating that you belief that the entire field of Tort law should disappear. Let me explain my reasoning: in a tort case, government (via the courts) can take money from someone and giving it to someone else when a civil proceeding finds that one party has commited a tortious act and should compensate the harmed party for some financial sum.
In addition, presumably, Tort law also needs a branch of enforcement (otherwise, those found liable will probably never bother to pay up), so other financial penalties and/or jail should further be attached to the requirement that the wrongful party pay the wronged party. Again, there is a possible-issued government financial penalty.
B) Relying on similar reasoning, would it not seem that forcing people to purchase insurance is also a form of "stealing" as you see it? If so, how would society compensate those who are wrongfully injured in car accidents and other situations where fault can reasonably be assigned if the guilty party has no insurance and little ability to compensate a harmed individual? For example, consider a car accident where the responsible driver has no car insurance and is otherwise bankrupt or poor -- what remedy does or ought the harmed person have? Even putting the guilty party in jail does not remedy the harmed person's plight, especially if there is the need for high medical bills or to replace a totaled car. Furthermore, it would appear to be "stealing" again if the government provided financial remedy to the harmed person.
C) No questions here. I'm using your assertion here to ask the questions above and below this one.
D) You say that Medicare and Social Security are sending the U.S. economy into hell? What is your reasoning behind this? Does it have to do with the fact that government deficits reduce the supply of loanable funds, which consequently hurts the overall ability of business to borrow? If so, how do you explain the general prosperity of America even during government deficits? Or what particular explanation do you believe provides the most compelling evidence of the pernicious effects of the two aforementioned programs (as opposed to other reasons for deficit spending including military expenditures and discretionary expenditures of all sorts including the $18 billion in pork the U.S. spends a year)?
E) What should we do as a society if the demand for assistance among the poor and disenfranchised is more than the supply of available, freely given assistance? (I'm not necessarily claiming that this is the case at the moment, because I don't have evidence either way). However, suppose that that is the real situation, then what should the role of government vis-a-vis the generosity of individuals be? And, if there is a gap, what should the role of government be vis-a-vis any protests among those who feel they are not given a fair deal?
A) I am sorry for not making the argument more clearly. I erred in that I did not explain that it is the redistribution of money from some citizens to others without just cause (and I do not believe "you have the money and they don't" is just cause) that I think is wrong. I have no problem whatsoever with tort law. I also have no problem with requiring child support payments, and things of that sort, as that will probably come up as well.
B) I also do not believe that forcing people to purchase insurance is stealing either. Forcing a consumer to buy a product at a reasonable price really isn't stealing. That is not to say that I think it is a good regulation. I do not see why the government should require every driver to have auto insurance. It seems another instance when the government is telling people how to live their life when it shouldn't be. A much better regulation would be that people are required to show that they have the financial capabilities to pay for an accident to the extent of the minimum insurance requirements OR to have insurance. In this the government would be protecting the rights of other citizens rather than infringing upon mine.
D) The crowding out effect (which as you mentioned reduces the supply of loanable funds) and the inefficiency of the Government. I can't say that the crowding out effect is the sole issue here because then the logical step would be to just increase taxes to an amount that facilitates the spending. The crowding out effect would disappear but it would still severely weaken the economy. The government is not anywhere near as efficient as the market is in deciding how resources should be spent. America has prospered because of the amazing ingenuity of the business owners in this country. And because it is one of the most economically free countries in the world. I have no doubt that if there was less government involvement in the economy America would be even better off. America has prospered despite government intervention, not because of it. My evidence is that of economics.
You asked why point to those to programs and not all of the others? Because those were the two that were brought up, and because those two make up such a large portion of spending and will be spiraling out of control in the coming years. I disagree just as much with many other types of government spending, including all of the pork, and all welfare programs. I also do not like our foreign policy.
As I alluded to earlier in this response it is not the deficit which worries me as much as the percent of GDP the government is involved in.
E) The government should do nothing if this is the case. It is not my right, nor the right of government, to tell anyone that they must give their money to someone else. In general society could pressure some to give more money as long as it was done in a peaceful manner. For example if we thought Bill Gates did not donate enough money make our protests heard by purchasing products of that nature from another business. I don't think this would actually happen because I don't think that most people in society really care enough to do this.
As far as protests the governments role should be the same as with any other protest. There are those now who do not feel like they have been given a fair deal and there always will be. The poor now have a better standard of living now than they did in the past (if you do not agree with this I will show evidence) but to me there seems to be just as many protests over income inequality.