It can, if the only tool is a hammer then everything is a nail. I'm not making broad statements about making fast massive sweeping changes. Not only would such

It can, if the only tool is a hammer then everything is a nail. I'm not making broad statements about making fast massive sweeping changes. Not only would such undertakings such as the ones you've elucidated be tremendously difficult, they almost certainly would cause far more harm in the attempt. If you would find it helpful I can explain specifically why I'm against each of these proposals,but I think it's more succinct to say: When evaluating a proposal that could make people's lives better at the expense of others we must weigh the harm against the benefit. If I were to take a billionaire and make them a millionaire to do great things for millions I will usually argue that it is ethically necessary for one with so much to suffer for the many. However, I do not support reckless, violent, or ill conceived proposals to hurt one to help many. Instead, we must all lower our weapons and come together to solve these problems. If we take too long then those with less restraint will make many decisions for us, the consequences of which will not be distributed ethically, fairly, sanely or legally.