Ummm, i have completed my reading assignment. Let me

Posted on: November 20, 2023 at 13:33:43 CT

acknowledge first and foremost that i am no supporter of Positive Rights. Bronco Bomma if you remember was a huge proponent of positive rights and believes that there must be a charter that describes and demands what government must do.

That of course is crap and right out of socialism 101.

I frankly have little to argue against in the piece other than that the author goes beyond what in my opinion is practicable and workable (as you do as well) in wanting to return to rapture by believing that, "there is no reason private charity cannot suffice to meet the need..."

In my opinion that is a dangerous overstatement due to the selfish nature of mankind and will not in all likelihood fund private charities to the level they need. The good news of course is that neither would they fund boondoggle or wasteful or useless projects designed to feather the nests of the powerful.

He says, "Governments are established to procure, preserve and protect a realm in which that moral agency [to run our own lives] may be freely exercised".

I agree in most cases - outside of disaster relief, pandemics and the like, as well as temporary assistance for the unlucky or diminished by physical or mental dilemmas.

The issue i have with him and with your thinking is the absolutism inflicted on society with his no government involvement (my words) in virtually anything.

There is in my opinion a need for government and for governance. The need of course has been exploited and extorted for the personal gain of politicians win the name of compassion.

Finally he says and this is where he goes off the rails imo with his absolutism, "The services of government are something people must choose to obtain by their consent to be governed. They do not have a natural right to them prior to having freely established that institution. Indeed, for that reason taxation, which fit well those regimes that treat people as subjects, is anathema to the free society in which even the funding of the legal order must be secured voluntarily."

Taxation is not in my opinion "anathema" to free people. It is necessary to fund a necessary part of society, i.e. government. The issue is not the concept of taxation but the amount of taxation and the usage of the money for which people are taxed. Taxing people to build a $100,000 park for queen large bottom's legacy is absurd and his as well as your thinking to let private charities pay for that is just fine, thank you.

But to use $100,000 of tax money to fund research for life saving drugs to cure childhood cancer is money well spent. Or it should be.

It is not practical and likely impossible to have enough private charities to promote, fund, staff and administer what would likely be tens of thousands of charities for every project that is necessary. Think how many ignorant, disconnected and disinterested people there are out there. Will we all be bombarded exponentially more than we are now, with causes that will legitimately help people and society improve themselves.

Would you be able to keep track of and keep tabs on the programs worthy of your "tax" dollars. And how much of your income would you voluntarily contribute to great causes that you believe in, especially knowing that the number of contributors are now (without taxation) significantly fewer than before?

The answer again in my opinion is not to abolish or to so tightly restrict and constrict government from doing ANYTHING to help people, but to elect people who think like we do (yes, i said we) to render unto caesar that which is caesar's (to be used for the public good) and leave the porkbarrel politics to the pigs who want to feather their nests with tax dollars to build a walkway for queen large bottom.

We need't change the type of government, we must only replace those who wish to abuse it for their own purposes.