Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

So are you saying the indicator of your "contribution to society" is how much money you have? Not exactly. It is a combination of wealth and goodwill. Someone who cannot produce must rely on the goodwill of others, who do produce, for his survival. That person must engender enough goodwill in others that they will voluntarily contribute to his upkeep.Someone who produces much, must rely on the goodwill of others to trade with him for those things which he cannot produce or he must produce much more to trade for those same things.This tends to create a society where you are either very social and personable, or you had better produce a lot of wealth to trade, because if you do neither, you will probably starve, and rightly so.I think most people don't want to live in a society where Donald Trump is considered to have "contributed the most" and Gandhi contributed the least to society.Donald trump is a bad choice. he made much of his money, rent-seeking, and taking advantage of bankruptcy law. This could not happen in a free market. I will use the example of Steve Jobs.Steve jobs was worth about $8B at his death. That means he produced (or caused to be produced) more than $8B worth of wealth for society, to have traded for that wealth. This includes both creating thousands of jobs for people in the US and abroad, the increase in efficiency of production realized by those who used Apple products, and the extra wealth people produced, so that they could trade for Apple products (Say's Law).Gandhi led a civil rights movement, and asked the wealthy to voluntarily donate their wealth to the poor, so that they might produce (with much success). He was very wealthy in goodwill. I cannot find information on his material wealth, but I will assume that he was not wealthy later in life. He did, however, always have enough to eat, if he chose. This implies that he produced more than enough actual wealth to trade for his upkeep. By following his philosophy, India, today, is a relatively poor country where people often have to bribe public officials and bureaucrats to perform duties that they are already paid by taxpayers to do.I would say that someone like Steve Jobs contributed more to the wealth of society, and should have more of a say in economic matters than Gandhi.Is that the core of the free market proponents value system?There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Someone must pay for everything anyone consumes. The proponent of a free market advocates that no person should be forced to pay for another person's lunch. This is the essence of liberty.In the case of the big box store, the rest of their empire in other regions is keeping them afloat. For small business they go out of business if they are voted out, just like a store slowly being driven out of business in a free market (but much quicker and more efficient).This automatically favors larger, multi-site stores, and reduces competition, both for market share, and for available labor. This will lead to high prices and low wages.In such a system, the success of the business would not be based upon the efficiency with which the store provides goods and services, but solely upon whether others (not just customers) "like" the store. This is the equivalent of your entire community being able to vote to have you fired, instead of your employment being a matter between you and your boss.I'm trying to relate your point to the real world: The majority is the middle class and the "bribe" is offering them goods and services I guess? And the minority is the wealthy?No, the majority is any group or quantity, with a specific characteristic, that comprises more than half of a whole. In my example, a majority of voters and a majority of production.Let's say you have 10 people with the following incomes (amount of wealth produced). A- $200 B- $200 C- $100 D- $10 E- $10 F- $10 G- $10 H- $10 I- $10 J- $10 The majority of wealth (resources) has been produced by 30% ( a minority of the voters).When these people vote on how incomes should be taxed, and who should receive the greatest share of what those taxes provide, how do you think they will vote?History shows that they will vote to transfer the wealth(resources) of the majority of producers, to the majority of the voters (who contributed less total wealth to the system). What recourse does someone who produces much, but is in the minority of voters, have to prevent this legal plunder of his productive effort?What is the incentive to produce wealth for society, if that wealth is confiscated to be redistributed to those who produce less?Such a system has the result of reducing incentive to produce wealth, leading to a less wealthy society, overall.Partially, but I say "nope" to your statement. The founding fathers would not have created a democratic government if that was the "idea".They created a democratic republic with many protections for individual rights (life, liberty and property) and checks on the ability of the majority to impose its arbitrary will on the majority (enumerating, not implying, and specifically limiting the powers of government, enumerating and implying the rights retained by the states and the people) [art 1 sec 8, 9th & 10th amendments].They even guaranteed a republican (not democratic) form of government for each state in the union. They did set up a system where enough of a majority could give government more power (the amendment process), but they made it purposely difficult and drawn out, taking years.