Sunday, October 23

Compassion Must be Voluntary, Vote No for CO Ref. C & D

I found this interesting comment from a Denver Post reader reacting to Bob Ewegen's column, "People of Faith rally to C and D." The reader is right on.
In aruging for Referendums C & D, Bob Ewegen is correct that the principles of all major religions teach that we have a moral obligation to care for the poor and disadvantaged. But voting to take from some to give to others doesn't count as compassion.

Each person must decide whether and how to assist the poor using his or her own time, talent, and treasure. There is nothing wrong with collective efforts, but participation must be voluntary. The problem with C and D is that they are government solutions, founded on coercion.

Rich Cantillon, Centennial, CO.
(The Denver Post, Saturday, October 22, 2005; Page 15C)
I too have found that the arguments in favor of Referendum C & D are great arguments for compassion, but they ignore that coerced and forced compassion is no compassion at all.

Why is it that Liberals and the left just can't seem to grasp this? Worst, it seems, more and more Republicans, in an attempt to compete against Democrats for the "caring" category in politics, are falling for these sort of arguments and losing their ground as far as fiscal spending. And at the end of it all, false coerced compassion at the hands of the government is no compassion at all--its just another expensive, fat, welfare program.