Thank you Kim.
I did actually read that first and I have just re-read it and the first few pages of the discussion and no one has put forth the question, do you think that more government involvement limits our personal freedom?
Jason would like to see us move further into a socialist type of economic system. Jason would like to see more government involvement in the form of more programs like universal health care. More government programs requires more money from the taxpayer. And as the article pointed out:
A fair distribution of wealth and investment in infrastructure are advocated, and since this wealth comes from the King’s own surplus, which can only have come from the people themselves, there is an implication that over-taxation has resulted in poverty-related crime. A fair and moderate taxation system which protects the poor would be logically consistent with the moral of the sutta. As a result of these policies, everyone benefits. Citizens are no longer forced by poverty into criminal activity, and therefore escape the risk of dire punishments. Ordinary citizens enjoy peace of mind, and can “with joy in their hearts play with their children and dwell in open houses,” and the King’s job of maintaining a stable society is made considerably easier.
There are strong resonances here with the Occupy Wall Street phenomenon, which has moved far beyond Wall Street, to over 1500 places at the time of writing.
Maybe I should re- phrase the question.
At what point do you think that more government involvement limits our personal freedom? How much is too little? How much is enough? How much it too much?
This question is turning into a real show stopper
Daniel, I'm getting the feeling you would rather not answer this one and that's okay. It's just a question, I'm not baiting you.