Liberals and Conservatives see the proper role of government from vastly different viewpoints.
Liberals see government as mere extension of their collectivist selfs – if something good can be done for someone down on their luck, then ALL of us have to contribute to sustaining that person. If that means FORCING someone, against their will, to be "charitable" against their will be extracting that money via taxes, so be it. For them, the State is of preeminence (e.g., China, the old Soviet Union, the old East Germany…) as it allows them the full legal force of government to do what they want to do.
Because their collective "sense of right" gets so bent out of shape when they hear "No, I do not wish to help cause XYZ". Their world view demands this as it is their sense that only the State allows any one to succeed (regardless of what they see in the real world)
I as a Conservative, believe that the individual reigns supreme, that Government is there only to do the things that we as individuals (or in voluntary groups). Thus, when I saw this over at The Next Right, I was gladdened, as it shows that SOMEbody gets it and is willing to base a group on it:
- The role of the federal government is limited to the powers given to it in our Constitution, and the bigger the government gets, the less competent it is to run our lives, and we must have leaders who understand that the market works best when it regulated and legislated least.
- A dollar belongs in the pocket of the person who earns it unless the government has a compelling reason why it can use it better
- We don’t spend money we don’t have or borrow money that our children and grandchildren will have to pay back, and we must have leaders who understand this and will listen to the will of the people.
Ah, FRED PAC!
The Founders knew what they wanted to see in a Federal Government – limited. Unfortunately, as time has passed (and lately, our failing education system that has become riddled with liberal pap, teaching social justice and multiculturalism instead of solid facts and the fundamentals).
Secondly, it is clear that Redfern neither has an understanding of, nor any interest in, the Constitution of the United States. Someone needs to inform this addled pol that the "the military" is mandated by the Constitution. Charity work is not. The role of police and fire protection is truly a legitimate role of government. Charity is not. Contrary to Redfern’s bald faced claims, there is NO "logic" or "consistency" that mandates charity work be done by government to the same extent as the military, police and fire protection. In fact, it is just a cynical warping of the truth used by Redfern to excuse his socialist theories and big government, nanny state policies. Our government was never intended to indulge in charity work. In fact, several presidents have been quoted exactly to that effect since the founding up until the socialist reengineering of government undertaken by FDR.