Scotty
David Codey (61)
But what you don’t hear is the story of Joe’s next door neighbour.
You see, Joe's next door neighbour, let’s call him Scotty, decided that he would get in before the new rules came to play and got a wooden sleeper wall built that is not as strong as Joes reinforced concrete masonry. A couple of years later there is a period of drought, followed by record rainfall which leads to soil movement. The wood sleeper then starts to rot away. The next year it rains again and Scotty's kids think it’s great and are having a waterfight in the back yard. One of them tries to climb the retaining wall to get a higher vantage point and wet the others with the hose, but the rotting wall is placed under too much pressure and gives way, crushing the child.
Joe's neighbour Scotty then has to pay massive medical bills to fix his kids broken bones. In addition to this he has to fork out for a new retaining wall. Upon hearing what has happened, Joe finally realises that government is looking out for his best interest.
Ah, I think we have a perfect example of where yours and mine theologies differ when it comes to politics.
I believe government should be there to provide safety nets to protect its citizens should something go wrong (in this case it would be legislation regarding quality of work of the timber sleeper retaining wall by the builder or structural engineer). The safety net is put in place and the individual has a choice as to the way the would like to go with a particular decision. Of course the biggest role of government should be to collect taxes and use them to build infrastructure and protect the weakest members of our society.
Where as, based on your story, you seem to believe that government should remove choices from its citizens so that they have less freedom, and that they then are forced into choices that the government thinks are the better options. There is a slight red tinge to you what you are espousing (and I don't mean Digby's jersey).