my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

[Cavernio]

Congratulations, you've become the single most infuriating person I've ever discussed anything with.
I have addressed the issue with your re-wording of 'restriction', which, hard for you to believe, is the same definition of the wording which I saw beforehand. I'm not saying things are perfect the way they are, I'm saying I think they're better than what they would be.

In order for you to convince me of a change which would be better, you'd have to describe in detail how having no public school system would be better than having one. I know already some of how it could be, from things we've discussed before, so I'd rather you not tell them to me again. What I DO want you to address for me, (and me specifically, since this is the issue I have with getting rid of social programs, like public education) is how we can break the cycle of poverty. I'm aware that obviously what we have isn't perfect, (before you mentioned them in your past few posts btw...It seems I'm not as ignorant as you think I am.)
I'm also not concerned with people who choose, for themselves, from an equal starting ground, a life of poverty. I'm talking about the issue of people being born poor who are as a result, almost doomed to be poor without social programs.

Here's a scenario how things could work without government, and yet get large projects funded. Well, without government, there's nothing to stop organizations which aren't government from helping out people. But there's no way they'd be as effective. The only way they could be is if EVERYONE contributed something, which isn't going to happen. Not only that, you'd have 1000's of different organizations, all running different things, yet all of which would benefit from being centrally organized. They could share resources. I suppose you could have a government-like organization which centrally runs all types of social programs, where it's not mandatory for people to put money into. But clearly, since people aren't heartless monsters, everyone who has anything to contribute will contribute something for some cause. Now there's also the issue of running around and collecting all this money. Can you imagine the phonecalls you'd get and the people knocking at the door for donations? That'd be almost an infringement of people's rights. You could simply put everything neatly into 1 bundle, where people fill out something each year for donations. Say one year, some famous person died of cancer, and suddenly everyone's putting money into fights against cancer, and some 90% of all donations collected were for cancer. (Since the place is 1 organization, because people realized they could do more with less, as we already saw, this is known data which would otherwise never be known.) But that's so much more money than the organization's ever gotten for cancer, so they've got tons of funds left over. Turns out that every other group is hurting for money because of this, and so to everyone in the organization, it makes sense to put at least some of this cancer money towards these other areas. So far, nothing that I've said has been questionable ethically, except for this. But lets say everyone who donated (so practically everyone) knew that 90% of the funds were actually towards cancer, and they knew how much money all the other organizations wanted afterwards, and knew the proposed projects and current ones, and people were given a chance to change where their money could go. You'd eventually get a good distribution of the funds across the areas that people thought would be best. However, in practice, that'd be impossible. Not everyone 1) would be able to know everything and 2) would be able to put that much time and effort into determining what exactly they should put their money into, because it depends on what everyone else puts their money into!
This problem can be fixed by having a few people whose job it is to determine the need of the organizations who want money, and by knowing how much money they'll get. Maybe these people won't do a good job, but they'd certainly want to. Keep in mind that in order for this to happen, you'd have to agree with the previous things I've said, and you'd have to want things to be well-organized.
This sounds like a government to me. The major difference so far is that it's run on donations versus mandatory taxes. And that's where the 2nd questionable thing is. Why should someone who makes more money HAVE to donate more? Say they didn't. People would know that. Word would get around, and they'd probably think poorly of them. In fact, if some rich person never donated anything at all to the organizations, people could get pissed and might try and harm them. And whatever law enforcement existed might not a give a **** and let people kick the crap out the person anyways. (Unless they were so rich as to pay their own guards, and then now you've basically got the set up for a dictator.)

Or you could get people who don't want anything to do with government, because they think they ideas bad from the start, because they're looking at it backwards, and then you just end up with a bunch of pockets of organizations and people who refuse to function as a whole together, where opportunity is being passed by.

Or you could end up with corruption in government over time, and end up with something like a dictatorship. Or a single rich person could be benevolent, smart, and start a non-corrupt government.

How does government become corrupt? In my mind, when people start doing things for reasons other than to help others, and when you stop including the wishes of others in the way things are run.

That you argue specific points about how things are done poorly right now is practically irrelevant about getting rid of public schools completely. That you put peoples individual rights to do whatever you want as long as you don't harm others is fine, however, government is not impeding this more than not having one, since we know that not having one would not allow for the the same opportunity as exists with one. Did Hitler see that and try and make use of central organization? Probably. Does that matter? No.