Sir jseal,


My response likewise was too brief and I apologize.

What I was suggesting is that the scope and size of services provided the US government has expanded from its’ responsibility to provide me with “the right to the pursuit of happiness” to being the “provider of what it determines is my happiness”. You are correct that the revenue required to do this has also increased.

You have sited examples where organized conventions can provide “uniform guidelines” for safety, but I think our views of “warrant regulation” are viewed from different perspectives. You’ve also mad reference to instances of direct proportional payment for consumption of common services but neglected to mention the situations of the elite deeming what is for the “common good” and often paid for by the majority but serve a minority who just happen to often be the same individuals.

It is the perpetual increase in “size and scope” that I find often exceed the original noble concept of “needed regulation” and the authority and responsibility that grows with them that also concerns me. I find that the redistribution of wealth puts a heavier burden on the ones preoccupied producing it than on the people structuring and administrating it. Both the shrinkage of processing and exclusion loopholes built into it tend to not “serve” the generators or the intended original goals.

How do the bean-counters always end up owning all the beans and never the farmer?

It is my opinion that as more responsibility for our individual well being is “assumed” by others, both the authority and ability to influence it is also taken over. I for one, am not comfortable being dependent on an entity with great “scope and size” providing my individual welfare and security.

Providing utopia is not the duty or the right of any government.

__________________