What did the government do for you today?

**K-B** · 10-04-2008, 07:26 PM

Where did that kind of horsey manure ever start? To quote a guy I heard on the radio today:

Quote:

The best thing the government could do for me is to get the **** out of my face and stay the **** out of my life.

People expect the government should "do things for them". Like welfare so you don't have to work. Free health insurance because you're so poor you can't afford your own.
Maybe if the Gov would quit charging income tax and lower other taxes you could afford your own insurance.
Obama thinks the answer is to heavily tax anyone with an income over $250k per annum. BS! Everyone should be taxed the same. If I work hard for my money, I don't see why I should have to be providing that lazy guy on welfare down the street more money to go by beer and smokes. Maybe if the government would stop giving out so many handouts, Americans would start learning to get their hands dirty again and make something out of themselves. (That's what I call economic stimulation - Jobs in America!) Where I come from, I was taught that you work yourself up. You can't "start" living like you're on a $500k income when you're only make $75k! Making something out of yourself - That's the REAL American Dream.

Another good quote I heard today:

Quote:

The definition of "government-sponsored affordable housing": The house that you live in that I paid for.

yustr · 10-04-2008, 07:57 PM

K-B,

Simple question: what is the legitimate role of government?

Give us a list.

Here's a couple to get you started:

Provide for the common defense...
Enter into treaties with other countries...
Issue currency...

Should the government be in the road building business? If not, how do they get built? Should the government be in the environmental protection business? If not, how do the people in one state keep the people in another from dumping all their crud? How about investigating basic science? There's no profit for 10 years so business isn't interested. Drug purity?

Now, you list some. Please get very specific.

**K-B** · 10-05-2008, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yustr

K-B,

Simple question: what is the legitimate role of government?

Give us a list.

Here's a couple to get you started:

Provide for the common defense...
Enter into treaties with other countries...
Issue currency...

Should the government be in the road building business? If not, how do they get built? Should the government be in the environmental protection business? If not, how do the people in one state keep the people in another from dumping all their crud? How about investigating basic science? There's no profit for 10 years so business isn't interested. Drug purity?

Now, you list some. Please get very specific.

The government's only legitimate role is to protect people's life, liberty and property. To answer your questions...:

Should the government be in the road building business?
No way. That should be done by the private sector.

Should the government be in the environmental protection business?
No. Pollution by private businesses are crimes of trespass, and should be punished as such. Regulations lead to corruption, which leads to MORE pollution.

How about investigating basic science?
If it's so unprofitable that business can't do it, I see no reason why government should be allowed to do it.

Drug purity?
Again, that is like pollution, see above.

yustr · 10-05-2008, 09:25 AM

Not specific enough. What does protecting life, liberty and property really mean?

What if that private road developer wants to put his freeway through my neighbor's yard. How do I say no? Is there a way to include this in protecting property? What if that's the best place to put it? Now that its built, what if he says only GM products are allowed on it? Its private after all and he can set any rules he wants. So do the Ford owners have to build one too? Or does government say he's impacting their liberty?

Is protecting life, liberty, and property meant in the collective sense; "The people" or the "person"?

My point in all of this being that when people say "just get government out of my life" I don't believe that they have thought it through.

**K-B** · 10-05-2008, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yustr

Not specific enough. What does protecting life, liberty and property really mean?

What if that private road developer wants to put his freeway through my neighbor's yard. How do I say no? Is there a way to include this in protecting property? What if that's the best place to put it?

It's up to your neighbor, if he wants his property used in such a way or not. If you don't like it, you'll have to find another place to live, because it's not your property.

Quote:

Now that its built, what if he says only GM products are allowed on it? Its private after all and he can set any rules he wants. So do the Ford owners have to build one too? Or does government say he's impacting their liberty?

No, no, no. You got me wrong. Instead of government building roads, it would be done by private companies, either by contract from the government or by contract from the people. The government itself should not be involved in the actual building. It's like building a house, once the contractor is done, you move in to your new house. The contractor can't tell you how many pets you can have in your house, it's not his house.

Quote:

Is protecting life, liberty, and property meant in the collective sense; "The people" or the "person"?

Each individual has the right to pursue freedom and happiness without government involvement.

Quote:

My point in all of this being that when people say "just get government out of my life" I don't believe that they have thought it through.

True enough. But the government of this country today was not how the founders thought it should be. It is more akin to what they fought against.

**Chode** · 10-06-2008, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by K-B

It's up to your neighbor, if he wants his property used in such a way or not. If you don't like it, you'll have to find another place to live, because it's not your property.

Each individual has the right to pursue freedom and happiness without government involvement.

This is one situation where I have to agree with you, K-B. First off, I got the Texas government tellin' me I can't fight my pit bulls. ***! They're my dogs! Dogs ain't people, and if I want to fight them against other dogs owned by consentin' owners, I don't wanna hear no animal rights crap.

Like that whole crock ain't enough, I got my neighbor complainin' that one of my dogs got loose and "mauled" his 3 year old daughter! First off, 27 stitches ain't "mauled". Mauled is like, a hunnert, ya know? In the second place, what kinda whiner won't build a addakwate fence around his house so's to keep his kids safe? He sez my dog shouldna gotten loose, but it coulda been a skunk or a 'coon that bit the kid. Hey! My dog's got shots!

**K-B** · 10-06-2008, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chode

This is one situation where I have to agree with you, K-B. First off, I got the Texas government tellin' me I can't fight my pit bulls. ***! They're my dogs! Dogs ain't people, and if I want to fight them against other dogs owned by consentin' owners, I don't wanna hear no animal rights crap.

Absolutely. Even though I wouldn't fight dogs, the government has no business ruling over individuals in that way. It's unconstitutional. Not only that, but it's that bunch of animal rights radicals that start BS laws like that in the first place.

Quote:

Like that whole crock ain't enough, I got my neighbor complainin' that one of my dogs got loose and "mauled" his 3 year old daughter! First off, 27 stitches ain't "mauled". Mauled is like, a hunnert, ya know? In the second place, what kinda whiner won't build a addakwate fence around his house so's to keep his kids safe? He sez my dog shouldna gotten loose, but it coulda been a skunk or a 'coon that bit the kid. Hey! My dog's got shots!

Now that I cannot agree with you on. Your dog attacked one of your neighbor's family, and the dog is your property, so your neighbor has every right to pursue and have you punished for it. In other words, you have to take responsibility for your dog's actions. Quite frankly, I find it rediculous that you blame it on the neighbor for not have a fence around their property.

yustr · 10-06-2008, 05:49 PM

K-B,

Who owns the rivers and seas? Everybody? Nobody? According to your logic [sic] either way, I can do anything I want, put anything I want into them, take as much water out of them, because until it effects the individual its OK. But there's no individual owner, so anything goes.

I suppose we could all sue you. But what's the proper level of clean up? How much gunk is OK. Pretty soon, somebody says "We should write this down so that the next time we don't have to go to court. Voila - regulation.

I ask again: what are the legitimate roles of government.

Common all you libertarians - where are you when K-B needs you?

**Chode** · 10-06-2008, 05:49 PM

It's my property, K-B, and I'll maintain it as I see fit. Don't need no stinkin' government or stinkin' neighbor tryin' to tell me I gotta have a fence! Man won't protect his property, how's that my problem? You don't like it, bubba, how about you and your big guvmint pals pay for my fence. Ain't nobody tellin me what I can or caint build or whut I havta build.

I kin protect my famly! Any stray dogs, coyotes, Jehovah's Witnesses, meter readers, come round, they can meet my best friends Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson. Don't need the guvmint to take care of what's mine.

I'll use my property any way I please. Them as don't like it can pack up and m o v e.

**40sondacurb** · 10-06-2008, 06:04 PM

If there is one thing the debate taught us it is that she has no foreign policy experience, but she can be taught what to think with enough prep time.

Sounds like a gal ready from day one to me.

**Chode** · 10-06-2008, 06:32 PM

Certainly, I have to agree that being trainable and willing to be trained is a big plus for any subordinate. You also have to admire Palin for saying up front that she might not actually answer the moderator's questions, but would speak directly to the American people.

If more politicians just based policy on what they believed and felt, rather than thought, wouldn't the world be a better place? I doubt it. If thought dominated belief, maybe we wouldn't be in a war in Iraq. Perhaps investment banks and insurance companies wouldn't have been less regulated than other banks and savings and loan institutions, and U.S. financial markets might not be in the toilet. And what about that Iranian guy, Ahmed whats-his-name? How do you think he make his political decisions?

**flipper** · 10-06-2008, 07:11 PM

Well let’s flip the script a bit here. How much control should the government get? Should they be able to ease drop on you if it’s for the good of the country? What if they put regulators into your home to control the temperature of your house? After all, they know what’s best temperature to keep your home at to help control energy costs and spending. Got to save our natural resources. Should they build 5 different types of houses and you get to choose which style you live it? Maybe they should control what type of foods you should eat. After all, that trans fat is bad for you. Hey, we are paying for your health care we need to control what you eat to keep health care costs. Forget the fact you have to wait 3 weeks to see a doctor we choose for you, and then if you need surgery it could be as far as 18 weeks depending on how important they feel it is for you. And if your old, well why spend the money to get you healthy, you will not be around much longer anyway.
Oh, and we want you to be the best worker, so we will train you on what we think your best job is. We will not care if you like it or not, its what your were tested to be good at. And since we already control your food habits and your job and your home, we might as well control what you drive, we will also tell you how many kids you are allowed.
But we will give you a reasonable allowance to decide what cloths you wish to buy. We wouldn’t want to take all the freedom from you.

I know what a lot of you are saying, that’s too much control. But let’s look at some examples.

Quote:

Waiting times can be up to 4 hours if a patient goes to the Emergency Department with a minor problem or may be referred to other agencies (e.g. pharmacy, GP, Walk in clinic).

Quote:

The median wait time for a consultant led first appointment in English hospitals is a little over 3 weeks

Quote:

For those not admitted ímmediately, the median wait time for in-patient treatment in English hospitals is a little under 6 weeks Ibid. Trusts are working towards an 18 week guarantee that means that the hospital must complete all tests and start treatment within 18 weeks of the date of the referral from the GP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_England

Quote:

During the country's sweltering summers, air conditioning systems in public buildings will be set no lower than 26C (79F). In winter, Spaniards will be allowed to turn the heating no higher than 21C (70F), with hospitals being the only exception.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...elandtransport

Hold up, I know what your saying, that will not happen here, but hold on:

Quote:

Next year in California, state regulators are likely to have the emergency power to control individual thermostats, sending temperatures up or down through a radio-controlled device that will be required in new or substantially modified houses and buildings to manage electricity shortages.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/us/11control.html

Quote:

NEW YORK - The Board of Health voted Tuesday to make New York the nation’s first city to ban artery-clogging artificial trans fats at restaurants — from the corner pizzeria to high-end bakeries.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/

Quote:

Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.

Quote:

About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...y-doctors.html
Glad to see national health care is actually working for them, after all they cannot afford to provide free health care to all

Quote:

My health-care prejudices crumbled not in the classroom but on the way to one. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute. Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian health care. I soon discovered that the problems went well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic—with a three-year wait list; or the woman needing a sleep study to diagnose what seemed like sleep apnea, who faced a two-year delay; or the woman with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_...ealthcare.html

Now don't forget to due you part for America and pay your taxes. After all, its unAmerican not to pay more in taxes then the next guy.

Welcome America to the socialist style, we see how well that has worked for other countries.

RedScott · 10-06-2008, 07:38 PM

Yustr,

The only legitimate role of government is protecting the rights of individuals.

However, looking back on the last 200+ years since our founding fathers hammered out what might be the best written definitions of legitimate government, we must begin to consider that there may be no legitimate role for government. Legitimized slavery, The American Civil War, WWI, WWII, the holocaust, countless genocides on the African continent, the Soviet's Terror Famine, Mao's starvation of tens of millions in China, the current state of American foreign policy, need I go on?

The correlation between government power and human suffering is close enough to demand that we evaluate it as causation, and question whether it's really worth the trade off of having the little yellow lines painted on the roads.

**Chode** · 10-06-2008, 08:04 PM

red, you're confused. The only legitimate role of government is doing what the citizens say it should do, as expressed by their duly elected representatives, elected executives, and the judiciary. Yeah, it hurts when the will of the people runs counter to what you think is right, but that's why our government is called a Democracy.

**40sondacurb** · 10-06-2008, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedScott

Yustr,

The only legitimate role of government is protecting the rights of individuals.

However, looking back on the last 200+ years since our founding fathers hammered out what might be the best written definitions of legitimate government, we must begin to consider that there may be no legitimate role for government. Legitimized slavery, The American Civil War, WWI, WWII, the holocaust, countless genocides on the African continent, the Soviet's Terror Famine, Mao's starvation of tens of millions in China, the current state of American foreign policy, need I go on?

The correlation between government power and human suffering is close enough to demand that we evaluate it as causation, and question whether it's really worth the trade off of having the little yellow lines painted on the roads.

How about Super colliders, mental institutions, genetic research, pharmaceutical research, computer technology.These projects were facilitated by government so let's get to the issue rather than minimize.

RedScott · 10-06-2008, 08:07 PM

Quote:

but that's why our government is called a Democracy.

Actually our government is called a constitutional republic.

Quote:

The only legitimate role of government is doing what the citizens say it should do

So then, by this logic, if the citizens say they want the government to kill all red haired people, you would call that legitimate use of government force. I strongly disagree.

RedScott · 10-06-2008, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 40sondacurb

How about Super colliders, mental institutions, genetic research, pharmaceutical research, computer technology.These projects were facilitated by government so let's get to the issue rather than minimize.

You'd be on pretty thin ice to claim any of these thing would never come about without government.

**Chode** · 10-06-2008, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedScott

Actually our government is called a constitutional republic.

So then, by this logic, if the citizens say they want the government to kill all red haired people, you would call that legitimate use of government force. I strongly disagree.

I would call it a deplorable use of government force, but if that was the mandate of the people... What do you propose as an alternative? Should there be some Power to block this action? Red, you're all for the Libertarian philosophy until things turn ugly, and then your solution is?

Sorry, but it seems to me that the whole Libertarian philosophy is that Government should be there when Libertarians need it, and absent when they don't.

RedScott · 10-06-2008, 08:44 PM

Quote:

I would call it a deplorable use of government force, but if that was the mandate of the people... What do you propose as an alternative? Should there be some Power to block this action?

Well yeah, a constitution.

Quote:

Red, you're all for the Libertarian philosophy until things turn ugly, and then your solution is?

I don't understand this question. Maybe we're talking about two different things at the same time. My explaining the legitimate use of government wasn't libertarian philosophy, it was the philosophy of the founders of the United States. The second part of my original post might be closer defined as libertarian philosophy.

**Chode** · 10-07-2008, 04:41 PM

Ok, I have to admit to a bit of leg-pulling in this thread. Mostly K-B's which may even be a bit longer than the other one now, but yours too Red. You know, that remark about being OK with killing redheads. Actually, I kinda like redheads.

But, I don't find the concept that there is some kind of divine mandate about what inherently constitutes the "proper" functions of government plausible. Rather than being some kind of monolithic icon, the Founding Fathers were individuals who certainly had differing visions of what our government should be. Even after the Constitution was ratified, they didn't all agree about the future of the document. Jefferson thought that the entire Constitution should be re-written as necessary to fit changing times. http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/...s/jeff1000.htm

Two of my favorite quotes: "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves were they to rise from the dead." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:40

"Those who [advocate] reformation of institutions pari passu with the progress of science [maintain] that no definite limits [can] be assigned to that progress. The enemies of reform, on the other hand, [deny] improvement and [advocate] steady adherence to the principles, practices and institutions of our fathers, which they [represent] as the consummation of wisdom and acme of excellence, beyond which the human mind could never advance." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:254

When I wrote about how many people are Libertarians until things get ugly, I mean of course until their ox gets gored. For example, people who believe in separation of Church and State, but don't understand why the 10 Commandments shouldn't be written on a stone block and set in front of every school. After all, weren't the Founding Fathers (again with the monolith) all good Christians (presumably Evangelicals)?

Or let's take those who think that functions like, say, snow removal on public roads should be handled by private contractors and not government personnel. In 1996 I lived in Prince William County Virginia. My sister in law came to visit, and we planned a family trip via Amtrack to New York. While there, we got to experience the Blizzard of '96. The City of New York removed the 24" of snow that fell on Manhattan and had all the streets clear within roughly 24 hours.

The snow had hit on Sunday afternoon, and we were stuck in the city until Wednesday. No flights, no trains. We finally got a train back to Alexandria, arrived at midnight Wednesday and had a 21 mile drive home. The main road from I-95 to our home had only been partially plowed, and our neighborhood streets hadn't been plowed at all, and in fact weren't touched until Friday of the following week. See, Virginia was heavily into "privatization" so our county had no snow removal equipment. They just paid anyone who wanted to mount a plow on their vehicle an hourly rate to plow.

Two weeks later, after roughly 36 more inches of snow had fallen, my street had still been plowed a total of two times, and only one lane wide both times. Guess how much of a beating the privatization of snow removal took in the press and around the water cooler afterward.

10-04-2008, 07:57 PM	#2 (permalink)
yustr Asst. Manager, The Conversation Pit Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Connecticut shore Posts: 6,049 OS: XP Pro My System	Re: What did the government do for you today? K-B, Simple question: what is the legitimate role of government? Give us a list. Here's a couple to get you started: Provide for the common defense... Enter into treaties with other countries... Issue currency... Should the government be in the road building business? If not, how do they get built? Should the government be in the environmental protection business? If not, how do the people in one state keep the people in another from dumping all their crud? How about investigating basic science? There's no profit for 10 years so business isn't interested. Drug purity? Now, you list some. Please get very specific. __________________ If there are lawyers or politicians involved, logic may be a very poor tool for reaching a conclusion.

10-05-2008, 09:25 AM	#4 (permalink)
yustr Asst. Manager, The Conversation Pit Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Connecticut shore Posts: 6,049 OS: XP Pro My System	Re: What did the government do for you today? Not specific enough. What does protecting life, liberty and property really mean? What if that private road developer wants to put his freeway through my neighbor's yard. How do I say no? Is there a way to include this in protecting property? What if that's the best place to put it? Now that its built, what if he says only GM products are allowed on it? Its private after all and he can set any rules he wants. So do the Ford owners have to build one too? Or does government say he's impacting their liberty? Is protecting life, liberty, and property meant in the collective sense; "The people" or the "person"? My point in all of this being that when people say "just get government out of my life" I don't believe that they have thought it through. __________________ If there are lawyers or politicians involved, logic may be a very poor tool for reaching a conclusion.

10-06-2008, 05:49 PM	#8 (permalink)
yustr Asst. Manager, The Conversation Pit Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Connecticut shore Posts: 6,049 OS: XP Pro My System	Re: What did the government do for you today? K-B, Who owns the rivers and seas? Everybody? Nobody? According to your logic [sic] either way, I can do anything I want, put anything I want into them, take as much water out of them, because until it effects the individual its OK. But there's no individual owner, so anything goes. I suppose we could all sue you. But what's the proper level of clean up? How much gunk is OK. Pretty soon, somebody says "We should write this down so that the next time we don't have to go to court. Voila - regulation. I ask again: what are the legitimate roles of government. Common all you libertarians - where are you when K-B needs you? __________________ If there are lawyers or politicians involved, logic may be a very poor tool for reaching a conclusion.

10-06-2008, 05:49 PM	#9 (permalink)
Chode TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,280 OS: Windows XP Pro	Re: What did the government do for you today? It's my property, K-B, and I'll maintain it as I see fit. Don't need no stinkin' government or stinkin' neighbor tryin' to tell me I gotta have a fence! Man won't protect his property, how's that my problem? You don't like it, bubba, how about you and your big guvmint pals pay for my fence. Ain't nobody tellin me what I can or caint build or whut I havta build. I kin protect my famly! Any stray dogs, coyotes, Jehovah's Witnesses, meter readers, come round, they can meet my best friends Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson. Don't need the guvmint to take care of what's mine. I'll use my property any way I please. Them as don't like it can pack up and m o v e. __________________ Sweet!

10-06-2008, 06:04 PM	#10 (permalink)
40sondacurb Don't be a menace Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,285 OS: Vista sp2	Re: What did the government do for you today? If there is one thing the debate taught us it is that she has no foreign policy experience, but she can be taught what to think with enough prep time. Sounds like a gal ready from day one to me. __________________ Donate to keep the forum running

10-06-2008, 06:32 PM	#11 (permalink)
Chode TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,280 OS: Windows XP Pro	Re: What did the government do for you today? Certainly, I have to agree that being trainable and willing to be trained is a big plus for any subordinate. You also have to admire Palin for saying up front that she might not actually answer the moderator's questions, but would speak directly to the American people. If more politicians just based policy on what they believed and felt, rather than thought, wouldn't the world be a better place? I doubt it. If thought dominated belief, maybe we wouldn't be in a war in Iraq. Perhaps investment banks and insurance companies wouldn't have been less regulated than other banks and savings and loan institutions, and U.S. financial markets might not be in the toilet. And what about that Iranian guy, Ahmed whats-his-name? How do you think he make his political decisions? __________________ Sweet!

10-06-2008, 07:38 PM	#13 (permalink)
RedScott Registered User Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 496 OS: Windows XP	Re: What did the government do for you today? Yustr, The only legitimate role of government is protecting the rights of individuals. However, looking back on the last 200+ years since our founding fathers hammered out what might be the best written definitions of legitimate government, we must begin to consider that there may be no legitimate role for government. Legitimized slavery, The American Civil War, WWI, WWII, the holocaust, countless genocides on the African continent, the Soviet's Terror Famine, Mao's starvation of tens of millions in China, the current state of American foreign policy, need I go on? The correlation between government power and human suffering is close enough to demand that we evaluate it as causation, and question whether it's really worth the trade off of having the little yellow lines painted on the roads.

10-06-2008, 08:04 PM	#14 (permalink)
Chode TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,280 OS: Windows XP Pro	Re: What did the government do for you today? red, you're confused. The only legitimate role of government is doing what the citizens say it should do, as expressed by their duly elected representatives, elected executives, and the judiciary. Yeah, it hurts when the will of the people runs counter to what you think is right, but that's why our government is called a Democracy. __________________ Sweet!

10-07-2008, 04:41 PM	#20 (permalink)
Chode TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,280 OS: Windows XP Pro	Re: What did the government do for you today? Ok, I have to admit to a bit of leg-pulling in this thread. Mostly K-B's which may even be a bit longer than the other one now, but yours too Red. You know, that remark about being OK with killing redheads. Actually, I kinda like redheads. But, I don't find the concept that there is some kind of divine mandate about what inherently constitutes the "proper" functions of government plausible. Rather than being some kind of monolithic icon, the Founding Fathers were individuals who certainly had differing visions of what our government should be. Even after the Constitution was ratified, they didn't all agree about the future of the document. Jefferson thought that the entire Constitution should be re-written as necessary to fit changing times. http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/...s/jeff1000.htm Two of my favorite quotes: "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves were they to rise from the dead." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:40 "Those who [advocate] reformation of institutions pari passu with the progress of science [maintain] that no definite limits [can] be assigned to that progress. The enemies of reform, on the other hand, [deny] improvement and [advocate] steady adherence to the principles, practices and institutions of our fathers, which they [represent] as the consummation of wisdom and acme of excellence, beyond which the human mind could never advance." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:254 When I wrote about how many people are Libertarians until things get ugly, I mean of course until their ox gets gored. For example, people who believe in separation of Church and State, but don't understand why the 10 Commandments shouldn't be written on a stone block and set in front of every school. After all, weren't the Founding Fathers (again with the monolith) all good Christians (presumably Evangelicals)? Or let's take those who think that functions like, say, snow removal on public roads should be handled by private contractors and not government personnel. In 1996 I lived in Prince William County Virginia. My sister in law came to visit, and we planned a family trip via Amtrack to New York. While there, we got to experience the Blizzard of '96. The City of New York removed the 24" of snow that fell on Manhattan and had all the streets clear within roughly 24 hours. The snow had hit on Sunday afternoon, and we were stuck in the city until Wednesday. No flights, no trains. We finally got a train back to Alexandria, arrived at midnight Wednesday and had a 21 mile drive home. The main road from I-95 to our home had only been partially plowed, and our neighborhood streets hadn't been plowed at all, and in fact weren't touched until Friday of the following week. See, Virginia was heavily into "privatization" so our county had no snow removal equipment. They just paid anyone who wanted to mount a plow on their vehicle an hourly rate to plow. Two weeks later, after roughly 36 more inches of snow had fallen, my street had still been plowed a total of two times, and only one lane wide both times. Guess how much of a beating the privatization of snow removal took in the press and around the water cooler afterward. __________________ Sweet!