<I said it's not optional. It does infringe upon your freedom, I suppose, if you somehow think you are not a member of a society with some responsibilities toward the community, though living in it and benefiting from it.

...And if your neighbor dies, his widow and kids, too, would have an income. I know compassionate conservatism and Libertarianism doesn't give a darned about them, but they would have to be supported somehow.



My, aren't we smug. I pay for the benefits I get from the "community." Hard cash. And a lot more in most cases than what I get back.

I would love to find the exact point in our society's history where the concept of "responsibility" toward your fellow man and generosity to the less fortunate became inextricably tied with government force.*

And I am sick to death of this shit about liberals having a monopoly on compassion, when all they do is rip wealth from others to pass around and take the credit for it. I am sick to death of watching politicians sign bills to pump vast quantities of taxpayer money into some "compassionate" welfare scheme. and then stand there basking in the glow of good will, grinning like they've just crapped a Faberge egg, not a nickel poorer for what they've done.

A conservative knows that real compassion comes from himself and his own resources, not from hitting someone with more money with a blackjack, rolling him for his wallet, and then handing the cash to the destitute.

I refuse to accept the collectivist premise that compassion can flow only from government, and I'm going to slam down hard every time it comes up.

*One theory puts it about here.