Non sequitur.

So, they're not stupid, they are just (considering we are in the internet age) willfully ignorant? In a way that's even worse, because at least being stupid is not immoral, but being willfully ignorant and then enforcing your (willfully ignorant) views over other people at the point of a gun (aka via government) is immoral.

The only balance is between the evil of government and the evil government is used to prevent.

All rights originate with the individual, and powers should only move up the hierarchy (individual/local/state/federal) due to necessity. Government may be a necessary evil, but that does not change the fact that it is an evil. Minimizing the evil in the world means minimizing government power (but not going so far that other greater evils -- ones not regulated/limited by the people -- take its place).

Because corrupting the power of a single entity (the federal government) is much easier than corrupting the power of 50 states, power should not be relegated from the states to the federal government unless that is necessary. Likewise for individuals and localities and their relationship to the states.

You're wording is presumptuous. You assume you are correct and it is up to me to "realize" it. Your statements are in fact rooted in nonsense. But I wish to ignore most of that paragraph so I can take aim at its worst part:

This is exactly what I was talking about in post #27213. You've taken "Thou shalt not steal" and mutated it into "Thou shalt rob Peter to pay Paul". How in the hell am I supposed to "realize" that a government has an "obligation" to engage in theft from one private citizen at the benefit of another? I acknowledge no such obligation, and in fact state that any entity that performs such an act should be reformed or abolished to bring to an end such immoral acts.

And once you accept the principle that government can rob one private entity to pay another, how do you then put that genie back in the bottle when the government decides to "redistribute wealth" for reasons which you do not agree with? I mean, what's wrong with giving bankers all that TARP money, clearly they needed it! Yeah, they had to steal the money from taxpayers to do it, and yeah, maybe it was the bankers' own fault they got themselves into such a financial mess, but, IT'S FOR THE COMMON GOOD!!!

It's pretty clear (to me at least) at this point that you are ignorant in terms of economics (or you are simply immoral and therefore do not care about the real-world ramifications, or are selfish/lazy so do not wish to invest in properly understanding the topic, or maybe you're stupid and just can't grok economics -- how am I supposed to know which it is? -- I just see what appears to be massive comprehension failure). Go read some Hazlitt, Hayek or Mises, maybe some Bastiat. I think Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" would be appropriate in this case (though you may want to start with something easier, like Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson"). I myself am always trying to improve my knowledge, and am currently reading Mises' book "Human Action", and so far it's really pretty brilliant. (I wish it was organized like a structured proof in formal-logic though -- it would make it much easier to consume in pieces rather than having to take it more as a whole work.)

And of course, these texts, like all texts about reality, should be read critically -- never accepting anything without understanding it yourself. (For example, Hazlitt's book is pretty good and is well worth reading, but back when I read it I did note a couple flaws in his logic, one of which meant that one of his conclusions was left completely unsupported, though all else in the book appeared to quite sound. Let's see if you can identify those problems as well, as that would indicate you really did understand the issues the book covers.)

If you want to get to the root of the financialization problem, you need to look back to 1913... (Hint: We used to have sound, Constitutional money in this country, which if not abandoned would have made much of this financialization crap impossible -- which is why the bankers got together in secret and plotted to end it.)

And "billionaire donors" would have ZERO influence if it were not for the fact that voters are overwhelmingly immoral/ignorant/stupid/whatever, and are therefore easily influenced by things like vacuous/misleading advertisements and empty (even contradictory) promises. If voters did their research and voted responsibly and morally, rent-seeking donors would see their ROI drop like a rock and their donations would dry up. (I would also be open to the idea of making lies made during political campaigns and while in office punishable by jail time. Of course, the politicians are not likely to go for such a thing.)