Hey, guys, thanks for the comments. Here’s just a quick response. This is not meant to argue, but to keep the conversation going. And, I guess, to clarify what I did not make clear.
I am in general opposed to government intervention, I value small government (and no-government) approaches to society’s ills. But I also know that there are highly unscrupulous people out there and there are limits to a “let the buyer beware” philosophy. For instance, it is illegal (not just wrong) to advertise that the bottled tap water I sell you will cure pneumonia. It’s fair that some would say that’s overly paternalistic, that the market can punish such liars. I just don’t agree that the hands-off approach is right in _every_ case.
So, if there are some cases where intervention is OK, what are they? I think that is the line that America needs to re-draw. Over the past decades, the area of intervention has expanded far too much…so let’s pull it in. Way in. I’m with you on that. The question I think everyone is facing is: How far is “way?”
Overall, my point isn’t about “poor folks” so much as it is about “desperate folks.”
I strongly believe in taking personal responsibility, and that perhaps the greatest problem facing society is that too few people take such responsibility. But, I also I stand by my claim that it’s simply wrong to prey on people who are desperate. . . whether they brought that desperation on themselves (like me, in the day) or not.
Thanks, everyone.
–Brad
