Sunday, May 12, 2013
Friday, May 10, 2013
Small communities will always be in favor of less government compared to their bigger counterparts. It took me until today to understand why. A community provides assistance. Some part time work to someone down on their luck. Cutting the yard and bringing food when someone's sick or injured. A vigilant eye and some deterrence to crime. Emotional support.
You see that in Concordia, KS. It's regular. Ain't regular in Topeka - let alone Chicago. It's not that a Highland Acres neighborhood can't be close and look out for each other, but it ain't the same thing. People can't come together around here like they can back home. So they turn to government to fill the void. No judgment calls here; it's a natural progression of thinking. Maybe if you're a decent person you're entitled to some sort of support when bad shit happens. The good people of Concordia can provide that assistance without a bureaucrat directing resources. Not necessarily true in Topeka.
I think this is fundamental in how we view government. Should the people of Concordia pay taxes to provide those services in Topeka that they provide themselves? And if they do, are they 'owed' similar assistance regardless of ability to provide? I suppose your answer to this question allows me to determine if you're a lily livered Democrat or a heartless Republican. And no, I refuse to frame it in other terms.
Some people are rich and live in suburbs and are still anti-government because they can provide for themselves regardless of the presence of community. Some people are rich and live in the suburbs and are big government folks because they're all paternalistic despite an already strong presence of community. Some people are poor and in the suburbs and that must be awful.