Correcting respondents’ assumptions
LETTERS
I see that people have been online, writing all sorts of unsubstantiated assumptions of their own in their responses to my recent letter. Be assured, folks, I do accept and use government services like roads, hospitals, schools, clean water. You folks missed the point.
Grinandbearit: there are services which are reasonable and which we expect to pay taxes to support. But Mr. Sawdon advocates going far beyond to make people economically dependent on government, rather than their own hard work, to meet their day-to-day needs. Like Johnny57 says, some taxes are necessary because some services are necessary, and I support that.
Fescue: no, I don’t advocate shutting down numerous services. I oppose increasing the dependence of people on government.
Dear friend, Mr. Nightingale, whose letters always encourage me with their stimulating challenge to improve my communication — nothing in my letter mentions things like your list (abortion, birth control, young Earth). But what is it to you if, at some point, a majority voted for them? Is it wrong just because it isn’t what you would choose? Or is what you choose wrong if other people think it’s wrong? You aren’t even aware of the diverse opinion of Christian believers on the issues you listed — they’re not all on the same page on these issues.
You most certainly have never read the CHP policy book, otherwise you wouldn’t make the rash assumption that it speaks in opposition to birth control. HBTE (homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, etc.) people need our compassion and our defence of their rights to walk our streets in safety and in peace, but that does not mean blind support for their insistence that we celebrate HBTE behaviours.
What I see throughout the replies: no intelligent refutation of my opposition to Mr. Sawdon’s advocated programs. The folks I cited above actually had to reach and imagine that I oppose existing government social programs, even though my letter does not once advocate their reduction.
Rather, I emphasize that Mr. Sawdon’s programs would eventually make delivery of the existing programs ever harder to maintain as government debt accelerated.
I do not want to see overextended social payments cause us to lose vital services like hospitals and schools, but it will happen if we create too many social payment programs. Greece is a splendid example of trying to give too many supports, and now they can’t afford the essential services.
Geoffrey Capp
Lethbridge