Protecting the weakest in society != zero Liberty. So what's the cutoff for the "weakest in society"? Do you have a percentage of the population that we're ob

Protecting the weakest in society != zero Liberty. So what's the cutoff for the "weakest in society"? Do you have a percentage of the population that we're obligated to care for? Should these people too helpless/clueless to ask for a competitive wage be allowed to drive cars? Should they be allowed to vote when they can't really perform the most basic of tasks in society? I didn't say the government should be responsible for all negotiations So where is the cutoff and how do we prevent it from creeping up? Food stamp use continues to rise because apparently larger and larger segments of the population cannot earn enough money for food. When does the continued increase of helplessness level off? the people who cannot improve themselves Cannot or will not? What incentive is there for people to get an education, to work hard, to improve their lot in life, to learn better ways to live, to learn how to negotiate for their worth at a job, etc. if the government tries to take over care of so many aspects. By seeking to protect people, government creates a dependency and victimhood mentality in society. Look, I'm for helping the helpless in our society. What I'm not for are absolute statements like your next one that are guaranteed to lead to an increase in helplessness. One could consider very low wages to be an unfair contract, pretty much by definition. If the wage earner is free to go elsewhere to negotiate the fee for his time then it is not unfair by definition.