It is not I who "divines what issues are important," it is the society in which we live.
Unequality is, indeed, a "natual, anticipated consequence" of our system. Furthermore, two children born in the same environment, though protected by our Constitution, will in reality not truly have equal opportunities, simply because of their individuality. Our constitution merely attempts to ensure that no government or person will have the power to deny another individual basic freedoms -- freedoms that give everyone, no matter what their station in life, the individual power of opportunity to become their own personal best.
That said, I don't believe we can ignore the fact that we are members of a society of *conscience*, and as such, bear certain responsibilities for members in need - those who despite equal opportunity under the law, are denied opportunity by fate or history.
The difficulty (and one basic difference between the political party philosophies) is determining where to draw the line in defining society's responsibility and how to achieve it.
When the Constitution was written, young America was comprised of ethnically and culturally diverse *states* and the Constitution was intended to respect the individuality of those communities while providing for a centralized governmental structure to managing our shared concerns, such as national defense. The practice of governing the fledgling country that emerged, reflected that intent.
America has grown, matured, and evolved into a more homogenous society in the 200+ years since then. In the process, we have accepted a "defacto" standard of federal and state government responsibility that, while differing in practice, does not contradict the original intention of the constitution. And please do remember that where law is concerned, the intent of the law is every bit as important as the letter of it.
By your thinking, we should be living in a land void of rules, laws, and shared responsibility so that you are free to live exactly as you please without consideration for the beliefs of others. This is, in itself, contrary to the constitution you purport to defend. We live in a representative republic, one in which your preferences or mine may be over-ruled by the the views of our elected representatives. Even in the *idyllic* world you would choose, it is highly unlikely that you would get your own way as often as you would prefer.
I suggest we will get a lot further in solving the challenges of our nation (not divined by you or me, individually, but by us as a community) if Libertarians would lay down their self-centered attitudes and think about the country as a whole for a change.
If you have ever uttered the adage, "There, but for the grace of God, go I," then even you have acknowledged the truth of my position. If not, then nothing I or anyone else can say, with matter to you. |
