The Government is Not a Village

Thinking about government, morality and taking care of each other is reminding me of the whole idea of "It takes a village".

My understanding of "It takes a village to raise a child" is that you need a number of people who love and are emotionally invested in an individual child to help him grow, flourish and mature. The "village" should be family, friends and neighbors. Loved ones.

Hillary co-opted the term to totally reverse its meaning. If the government becomes the "village", you are, in fact, undermining the influence of the very people the child needs. No bureaucrat can ever care for a child like a parent or friend can.

It's all about who gets to define the terms.

Health Care, Government and Morality

Yesterday, a couple of my facebook friends had posts about health care. Here's the first one:

"No one should die because they cannot afford health care, no one should go broke because they get sick, and no one's child should miss a doctor's appointment because it costs too much. And no one should have to choose between buying medicine and buying food. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day."

While I'm quite fond of the person who posted that, I'm quite annoyed by the sentiment.

I strongly resent the implication that if I don't want the government to run health care, I am uncaring. That having the government in charge of health care (or anything) is somehow a morally superior stance.

I contend that having the government take charge of anything is a morally inferior stance. It's a copout.

Aren't our families and children better off when the parents take charge of providing for them? Well, I could buy this insurance policy but I know that the government will step in if something bad (health crisis, flooding, other natural disaster occurs). Shouldn't the schools be teaching my kids about that (manners, hygiene, sex ed, values, etc.)?

The more people expect the government to be involved in anything, the less they are inclined to be individually responsible for them. The more government is involved, the more institutionalized, and therefore less human, the help becomes.

If I know that the widow down the street is being provided for by the government, I am less inclined to see if she needs help mowing her lawn or getting a ride to church. My conscience is eased knowing that she's being helped, and yet I am in no way inconvenienced (aside from paying taxes).

But doesn't working through an inconvenience make us stronger. Does government control of anything make its citizens stronger or weaker?

I support government help for those in our society who are truly in need, namely those who are mentally and physically unable to care for themselves. But, the more we expand the category of those needing government assistance, the more we weaken the entire population.