More On The GOP Pushback To School Lunch Mandate

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

If the government is not to play any role in helping people, in health or other areas, what is their proper role in your opinion?

This question is indicative of the ignorance of the left regarding what the role of government actually is.

And by the way, WikiPedia is newly proven to be almost completely inaccurate regarding health and medical issues, so stop quoting from those idiots.

 

[Crabtownboy]

This question is indicative of the ignorance of the left regarding what the role of government actually is.

So, in your humble opinion, what is the role of government?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

So, in your humble opinion, what is the role of government?

I can't say it any better than Ezra Taft Benson said it.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

So, in your humble opinion, what is the role of government?

Is it to throw away food ?
Print money ?
Force schools to comply at their loss ?
Confiscate meals brought from home ?

 

[Inspector Javert]

A National debate about the content of a kid's school lunches is one we should never have to engage in in the first place.

The Federal Government has no place concerning itself with the education of children or what they eat whatsoever. It is none of their purview in the first place.

 

[Inspector Javert]

So, in your humble opinion, what is the role of government?

Protect individual Freedom,
Protect Private Property,
Defend the weak from the strong who would take from them their liberty or property either by force or fraud.
Provide for military defense,
Punish Evil-doers.
Provide for common peace and tranquility and
Enforce legally binding contracts between free parties

Absolutely nothing else..............This absolutely includes extorting money from private citizens via force (i.e. taxation) to redistribute those funds to either feed starving children educate children or provide the sick and dying medical care.

None of the Government's affair.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Protect individual Freedom,
Protect Private Property,
Defend the weak from the strong who would take from them their liberty or property either by force or fraud.
Provide for military defense,
Punish Evil-doers.
Provide for common peace and tranquility and
Enforce legally binding contracts between free parties

Absolutely nothing else..............This absolutely includes extorting money from private citizens via force (i.e. taxation) to redistribute those funds to either feed starving children educate children or provide the sick and dying medical care.

None of the Government's affair.

Thanks for a rational reply. Actually to do what you say is the role of government will require some redistribution of wealth. Actually a government can do nothing without funds from some source and that redistributes wealth.

If you carry the ideas you expressed, and I agree with them, to their logical conclusion then just about anything can be justified. But isn't that what the argument is about, what do these clauses really mean.

I would say that a government that does not try to feed its starving children or provide for the sick and dying is a useless government, and one that goes directly against the teachings of Christ as well as against common sense of what a government should do. Why should a government have to defend its citizens while letting them starve. Isn't feeding and caring for them a defense and promoting their well being?

 

[Inspector Javert]

Thanks for a rational reply. Actually to do what you say is the role of government will require some redistribution of wealth.

Not re-distribution, no.
By "re-distribution" I mean taking wealth from one party and providing it to another party. Obviously a Government requires funds to carry on it's mission, but that never includes acting as the middle or third party in taking money from one free party and granting it to another.

Actually a government can do nothing without funds from some source and that redistributes wealth.

If, by "re-distribution" we can agree that to mean taking wealth or property from one source and giving it to another....
That is not what a legitimate function of taxation is.
Obviously, salaries owed and contractors paid for services rendered to the Government in the carrying-out of it's duties does indeed shift wealth from one party to another....but only incidentally...
but it is not done solely for the purpose of re-distribution.

If you carry the ideas you expressed, and I agree with them, to their logical conclusion then just about anything can be justified.

I don't think so....
They can be abused....
But nowhere, for instance did I provide for the Government to engage in acts of charity. That's nowhere on my list.

I would say that a government that does not try to feed its starving children or provide for the sick and dying is a useless government,

One which does, invariably and by necessity becomes a tyrannical one. No matter how good one's intentions are, it's not the governments job...
SOCIETIES job, yes, but not the Government's.

Let's say that within our toolbox we have a hammer, a wrench, and a screw-driver:
Let's call the hammer the society or people at large
Let's call the screwdriver the government
Let's call the wrench the Church.

If you need to drive a nail or tighten a bolt, do you pick up the screw-driver?

If you need to fight off the invading Russians do you use the wrench or the hammer or the screwdriver?

Is it the proper function of the Church to fight off invading Russians?
No, you use the screw-driver......the Government.
Why? probably because we've learned throughout history that religious organizations which are in possession of standing armies are dangerous things....so it's the Government's job.

But if you want to provide Theological treatises, or sermons do you ask the Government (the screwdriver) to write them?

No, you use the Church, because history also shows that when the Government is the final arbiter in issues of Faith....people get burned at the stake.

Now, when it comes to acts of Charity....
Which tool should be used?
That's the real question...not "What do those clauses mean?"

and one that goes directly against the teachings of Christ

Christ did not advocate for Government control of charitable exercises.
We do know that the Apostle Paul taught us the purpose of Government, and it involved the use of the SWORD. Is the SWORD the tool we use to feed the hungry?

as well as against common sense of what a government should do.

History and the Constitution declare otherwise.

Why should a government have to defend its citizens

Because it carries in it's tool-box the sword....not the breadbasket....
And the only way it can GET the breadbasket is...:

IT'S SWORD!
That's dangerous and gives way necessarily to tyrrany.

Isn't feeding and caring for them a defense

No, it's feeding and caring for them...it's CHARITY....wrong tool. You need the Breadbasket for that. The Government doesn't have that.
"Defense" involves the sword....different tool.

Feeding, caring for, and nurturing is the noble goal...it's ABSOLUTELY what Christ taught us to do....noble venture...but Government is the wrong tool.
It's societies job and the Churches job, not the Governments.

and promoting their well being?

I knew better than to say a phrase like "promote their well-being"...

 

[Bro. Curtis]

When the O/P finally gets discussed, someone let me know.