But America has grown so soft we don't realize this was supposed to be our destiny. Why don't we just go and build some space colonies and space mining facilities already? Do we really want to waste our trillions on Chinese crap when we could form a new space-based society of Heros? We've lost the “right stuff” indeed.

It might be a “horse trade”, but what you're proposing is essentially an “a la carte” system.

And by “personalize” I didn't mean “make it personal”, I meant “make it specific”. We're talking about government programs, not specific people like myself and your children.

Yes, maybe you do give more money to charity than I do. Then again, maybe you don't. And it's interesting that you state it as “a percentage of income”–I'm sure spending a high percentage of your income on charity makes you look better, but in the end it's the amount of money that comes in that matters to the less fortunate.

And that's the problem; charities cannot possibly do all that the government does for people, they just don't have the funds. You can probably help more people through support of government spending than private charity.

Thus, by comparison, I am doing more for the less fortunate than you.

Of course, I said nothing about “government a la carte”; what I suggested as a deal is to reduce taxes for both you and me (and my kids). I believe politicians call this 'horse trading'. But so be it.

Plus, for a guy who doesn't want to make it personal, you sure do like to characterize me as 'unwilling to help others'. I'll stack my voluntary charitable contributions as a percentage of income against yours any day. More generally, political conservatives donate more to charities than political liberals: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/2008032...

Who's willing to help others again?

The difference between us, apparently, is that you see government as “helping others”. How naive. I see government as “taking money from you and me at gunpoint to spend as the elite deem fit” — including bailouts for their connected buddies, graft, corruption, and payoffs to constituents. The facts, I think, are on my side.

-rsh

Government isn't a la carte.

And it's ridiculous to make it this personal…”my kids”,”your old age”…since the taxes we pay to into a system that supports many different people. For all you know I won't retire, or die while I'm still working.

And unlike you, I'm willing to help others, even if it doesn't directly benefit myself. That's how I see government

I suppose legions of folks were forced to vote for Obama. Or pretend to be environmentalists. All results of great social pressure to conform.

It is a truism to say that with taxes you end up paying for things you don't use. So I'll make you a deal. I'll go along with you not paying taxes towards my kid's education, since I'm perfectly willing to pay for private school, if you go along with them not paying taxes towards your old age care. Deal?

This way, we can reduce taxes (which is ACTUAL force, not just social pressure, since cops with guns come to your house if you don't pay) to the bare minimum of national defense, the legal system, and one or two other things — all clearly laid out in that old document, the Constitution.

Howzzat sound to ya?

-rsh

As to taxes, requiring people to pay them hardly seems as restrictive as forcing people to marry. The comparison just doesn't seem valid.

And I'm sorry, but with taxes you sometimes end up paying for things you don't use. I pay for welfare but probably won't ever use it. People who have major medical problems in old age don't pay any more for Medicaid than those who don't. That's how taxes work.

As a father of two, I do wonder, however, if you choose not to have children, why my kids and grandkids should pay for your Social Security, Medicare, and the like. Talk about forcing people into roles…

-rsh

Greater diversity in family forms better allows people to follow their vocation, and in the process serve both society and God. For some this will involve marriage and children, some only marriage, and some neither.

It's certainly better than attempting to force people into roles to which they are ill-suited. Which nowadays really isn't possible anyway.

And yes, it does matter than Domenech is himself an example of the very men he spends 3000 words criticizing. It's called hypocrisy.