Small government/debate

This mapping is incomplete; I'm starting with the supporting arguments first.

Reducing the size of government gives people more freedom.

Government creates burdensome regulations that interfere with people's personal lives.

Government cannot provide freedom; it can only enslave.

A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have. (literal interpretation)

If government has sufficient resources to provide a living for a significant portion of the population, it also has the resources to deprive people of their rightful property.

A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have. (implications)

The hidden cost of a government-provided social safety-net is too high.

If you accept the need for government to have the power to give, you accept the need for government to take without consent.

Nobody likes having their property taken without their consent.

Taking without consent is theft.

People who want a social safety-net are supporting theft.

A government-provided social safety-net means that the government takes from some people and gives it to others.

Anyone who wants this supports stealing from others.

People who want a social safety-net are being selfish.

People who support a social safety-net just want a free ride at the expense of others.