>
> It is not the place of the government to solve the problems of everyone.

We heard you say this in your original post. Now you reply to [spacebar] by saying the same thing again even though he took this argument of yours to its logical ends. Please address his whole argument in context, not just this one paragraph and maybe I will buy your side.


>
> "If a man shall not work, neither shall he eat"-a Bible quote that means a lot to me. To have the government tax those who are propserous to feed those who are not is wrong.
>

Hmmm, let's see, if I take this Biblical quote at face value, it means one thing but your explanation is completely different. Not being prosperous does NOT mean not working. It is called aid and it is a Biblical principle. Paul took a collection for the church in Jerusalem who were not prosperous so they could eat. Please look at your quote again and read it in context. If it is the one I'm thinking of, it relates to people who chose not to work because they were anticipating the end of the world. These were not people who are caught in a cycle of poverty and are struggling to feed their children. The verse has nothing to do with government but rather the church. Sure, Welfare has some flaws but your sweeping generalizations don't cut it.

> Only in communism is equal propsperity a right. In capitilism, your prosperity is proportional to how hard you work.
>

That's a nice equation. Unfortunately, it doesn't work. How come teachers who work harder than a LOT of people are less prosperous than a football player or a stock trader? I'm sure that you could find some that don't work as hard. Or is it all relative?

> It's not a perfect system. Some people will be on the bottom end of the ladder, and have a hard time working their way up. Such individuals should be helped by charity, the church, and by those who are prosperous... but voluntarily. A system which just redistributes income for nothing is unjust.
>

"So, why are you giving money to the poor, Mr. Government?" "No reason at all." C'mon. Aren't you countering your earlier argument here?


>
> Governments don't have a responsibility to shirk. PARENTS have the responsbility to see to the education of their children. PEOPLE have the responsbility to take care of themselves. I have the responsbility to look for a job. The government doesn't have the responsbility to find one for me.
>

So, why should they bother to make sure you're safe? Shouldn't that be your responsibility, too. How have you drawn this line? The government shouldn't worry about kids getting an education but they should worry about keeping these kids from growing up and threatening you? Isn't that what they are trying to do with education?

> Keep the government out of education. In California, they'd like to make homeschooling illegal because they see it as in inferior education system. Maybe it is. But the choice is not the government's to make. Let parents have the freedom to choose the schools for their children. My parents have homeschooled me, but because of the taxes they pay for the public schools, they are having a difficult time paying for my education. The current system limits the freedom of parents and the monopoly on education in the public schools will not easily be broken. Until it is though, the public schools will continue to degrade and parents who choose a better system will continue to be at a financial disadvantage.
>

Please show me where you are getting this California Homeschool Prohibition. I live and California and haven't heard a thing about it. If it is true, I want to know about it. If it is false, get your facts straight. I know plenty of people who homeschool their kids and they haven't mentioned this ONCE. The point is, your parents CHOSE not to put you in public school and they made that choice knowing, hopefully, the ramifications. You had the option of homeschooling while many kids don't or the parents know that the public schools will do a better job. So, why take that option away?

> I have some more to say... but I've got to get going.
>
> Mark"It's about my arguments, not me"N

No, it sounds like it is about you. "My needs aren't being met." Unfortunately, this is a common mantra in this world. Just look at what Gore and Bush are doing. Instead of looking at what is best for the country, they fight for themselves. Please look at the bigger picture, not just your individual situation.

Fer"Won't be surprised if this gets deleted"rick