Why not a combination of federal, state, and local governmental aid to people in need, in addition to private charity? Why does it have to be one or the other?
.
It isn’t. Certainly not the federal government’s duty.
Besides, government cannot create wealth. All government can do is tax, print money or borrow.
Life is an entitlement, as are liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That’s in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
That doesn’t mean government can afford to do the whole job alone. But if government is not at all involved, what are we paying taxes for: ONLY defense, wars, infrastructure, and abortion?
Aside from abortion, that’s exactly right. The federal government should only protect the nation from foreign invasion, settle disputes between the states and conduct itself in a very limited fashion.
Abortion is murder.
I said the right to access in my original post. However, one has to have the means to access health care, food, and shelter.
When government gets involved in these things, people’s access gets restricted. Try providing shelter to people in a city that has countless ordinances or requires union labor or won’t let you have a lemonade stand or raw milk.
That’s why cannibalism was occurring in Soviet states. But did government care? Not really. Why? Because it’s fair. That’s all that matters. This example was noted by Glenn Beck.
The same is true with health care in places like Canada and the UK. The price control that government uses is rationing of services.
People will get access to all of those things if government gets out of the way. Health care benefits originated in the private sector. It’s not as if one day government woke up and said “hey! Let’s help people with medical issues!”
**Government gets in the way of everything you say you want to do, and if you’d actually get out more and do it, you’d undoubtedly experience it for yourself. **