On Saturday, November 6, 2004 at 04:41:54 (-0500) dshemano writes: >... >I do not understand how these posts are responsive to my point. From my >perspective, they confuse the fundamental issue, which is what is the >appropriate role for the family and what is the appropriate role for the >government. To the extent that the government assumes roles traditionally >assumed by the family, the family will stop performing those roles and the >family will be weakened. I am sure that there are those who think that would >be a good result, but I do not.
Let's see if we can disentangle this little hairball of selective carping: Historically, the family was responsible for hunting, gathering, medical care, personal safety. Therefore having an agricultural system, doctors, and police means "the family will stop performing those roles and ... be weakened". The straightforward logic is that any burden taken from the backs of individual families by others will weaken family ties. Am I the only one to think this is silly? Bill
