Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Perhaps some of it is simply the realistic view that many people
can't
handle certain things for themselves.

That's a shame. It's still not the government's role to mitigate
personal responsibility. That goes against the very principle of
freedom
of choice.

When 100% of citizens and corporations demonstrate personal
responsibility,
you will stop hearing people clamoring for more police on the streets
and
more laws. Until then, live with it. This is human nature.

That's a cop out answer. If we were to apply that logic, we should all
be in jail, until we can all prove that we're responsible. Why should
the many suffer due to the acts of the few?

I know you hate hypothetical examples,

I love hypothetical examples, as long as they're based on reality, and
can have a direct correlation to a real situation.


but here goes: Our county is
considering a law which would affect the officers of corporations which
break the more serious environmental laws. Instead of their being able to
tie the NY DEC (dep't of environmental conservation) up with red tape and
lawyers for 183 years, they would be "arrestable" immediately for such
things as releasing dangerous chemicals into the community without reporting
them immediately, as the law requires.

Why stop there? Why not arrest them on the spot for ANYTHING improper or
illegal?

How would this Big Government intrusion affect you personally? How does this
make the many suffer due to the acts of the few?


Then you should have no problem with increases in surveilance
technology, which monitor movements outside of your home, or computer
systems which monitor your income, and spending habits, in order to spot
potential criminal activities.


You want a different retirement plan system? Do something about it. But,
you're the guy who can't even deal with the minor hurdles involved in
challenging your local town council, comprised of small-time political
players from your own neighborhood. So, stop complaining. You seem to
believe that voting for president is the end of your responsibilities as
a
citizen.

I do support this change. That's why I vote for people who support
greater choice, and less government regulation. Since we live in a
system of representative democracy, there is little I can do, as a
common citizen, except to support elected representatives who most
closely align with my ideals. I do that.

If you're suggesting that I grab a picket sign and chain myself to a
state building like some leftover 60's wacko, that's not going to
happen. For one thing, I have a job, and a family to support. I don't
have the time to engage in such discretionary activities.

Dave

Nobody's suggesting that you march around with a sign. But, I doubt very
much that you know which pieces of legislation your elected officials are
working on at any given moment. And, I doubt you write letters to them or
call their offices to voice your opinions.

Then you, once again, assume without any facts. Since the advent of
E-Mail, I have been keeping tabs on our elected officials quite closely.



When you elect someone, you do so based on issues that are important to you.
We know from experience, though, that those issues are part of a much longer
list of priorities for most politicians. You cannot simply vote and then
turn your back and hope for the best. It is not patriotic.

Patriotic? I'm not sure that I'd agree with the usage of that term, but
I would agree that it's not the most responsible. But someone who votes
for someone based on the issues, is head and shoulders above someone who
votes for someone because he has "good hair".

Dave