This can be summed up pretty easy in my book. We have allowed them to use the phrase. To be provide for the general welfare clause of the Constitution. To interpret that government is responsible to take care of things for you.
When I debate democrats on the healthcare issue, and they claim it is a right. I always ask. Is food and water a right as well? Do you not see where your logic fails you. Food and water are the 2 most essential things to have. If anything is a right. It would be those 2 things. With shelter lining up right behind them
Reason,and logic seldom have any effect on someone who thinks it's the governments job to take care of us.
Don't ever stoop to their level
I always try to get them to agree that the federalist papers are kinda like a blueprint for the Constitution. Then once that is estaished. You can go and provide them with the meaning of what it is really about.
Like the general welfare clause. Our founders never even considered we would have anything like this, and it is so easily proven.
I also always use. The government thinks so little of you
They would have you believe you can't do anything for yourself. Which is blatantly obvious that we can.
Starting a business can be tough depending on what that business is
I started a painting business 5 years ago. With 500 and a truck.
In my state you don't need a license to paint. So that's an easy one, but as far as trying to start something where you are competing with big corporations. They have made the rules this way to stop the average person from competing. Not many are willing to risk everything for a maybe.
We must also never forget, most republicans believe in government control. They have been a part of the twisting of our freedoms for decades. To start with the federal reserve and income tax act. Republicans were a part of that movement. The drug war. Minimum wage.
Until we get rid of the phony 2 party system, and elect candidates that care for freedom, and not control. This will not change.
I love president trump, but even he signed NDAA again. That legislation guts the Constitution. Gives government authority to kill or lock anyone away forever. With no trial, charges, or even a dam phone call.
We have to hold them accountable. Governments main function now is to not lose control of their power. Without a willing base to hang onto. They lose power. If we didn't need than. They wouldn't be important, and able to Garner wealth and privilege over the masses
Bottom line we as Americans have allowed it by letting the 2 party system highjack government.
We need to demand other parties be allowed to debate in presidential elections.
They make us believe that to many choices would confuse us, and say we are not smart enough to discern between say 4 and 5 different party candidates.
That's the real problem. The 2 party system has ruined this country, and those that hang onto it. I stead of demanding better.

First is so-called minimum wage, and the so-called Right also whine. The so-called right whine about paying the National Debt in the National Interest, but before doing so they whine about not having any National Debt.

It turns out the the solution to the problem isn't.

Problem: Workers are not paid fairly.
Solution: Create a National Crime Cabal with a Central Bank that can pay anyone whatever anyone wants by simply writing an amount on a check, and charge the expense to anyone who dares to produce anything worth stealing, and then pay workers fairly according to the Criminals running the Central Bank Scam.

Too complex to inspire any responding comments?

The Right whines about paying off National Debt, so no comment?

The Left whines about the wrong Dictator running the Nation? If only "my" Dictator were in power, then "we" would all be paid fairly!

How about some evidence to link what was just offered in words above with the so-called minimum wage solution to a problem that isn't a problem itself, it is a crime in progress, a crime that benefits the criminals at the expense of the victims: so why fix it when the "problem" to be fixed is so enriching, and therefore not an actual problem?

The problem that is supposedly being fixed by arbitrary government power (criminal power) is a distortion of what is known as a labor market. To turn this right-side-up, instead of up-side-down, the same market can be stated as a distortion in what is known as the employer market. The "problem" isn't a problem for those who profit from it, and therefore there is no need for a "solution" to a problem that is actually a benefit, a rapidly filling bank account, filled by simply adding zeros at will.

If there are more employers, and fewer employees, the power shifts from the present distortion of power to a balance of power, or the balance of power shifts decidedly in the opposite direction: not enough workers and way too many people in desperate need of workers. The price of labor goes through the roof, and the cost of starting a business is determined by whatever the few workers are demanding for pay.

Why would these distortions of markets happen in the first place?

There is a distortion in the accurate accountability market. Too much bullshit, not enough facts that matter. The price of connecting accurate information to those who demand it is through the roof.

People have to actually read, and to do so they have to pull their heads out of their asses.

"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy
by William Watkins

My precious, precious, precious, ohhhh, soooo, precious Central Banking Scam, what Nation could ever defend itself without such National Interest?

What does that have to do with the non-existent worker wage problem?

"First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency.

"It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount.

"If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks.

"This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product.

"Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.

Benjamin Tucker, State Socialism and Anarchism:
HOW FAR THEY AGREE, AND WHEREIN THEY DIFFER, 1888

OHHHH NOOOOOO! A giant wall of text! Hide, hide, where is my ass?

As to the so-called whiny Left and Right Medi-don't-care problem?

More things to read, oh my:

"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely."
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins

It turns out, once again, the National Interest that makes so few people so powerful all of a sudden, or at least one check at a time, isn't a problem, it is a solution to the slaves don't listen problem.

It’s called entitlement! They think you and me owe them an existence just because they are here. It’s a human right to suck an existence out of the working class.
Darwin was right, the weak are good for the lion!