Deeters,
With all due respect, Kirkland does not need it’s government overextending its reach by thinking it can provide “a safety net for us all”

Once we have a safety net that can effectivly protect us FROM the government, then we can go about the business of growing our families, businesses and city.

Please use my tax dollars to clone Reagan

Is Norkirk better when it has small homes on large lots? Better for whom? Those who owned the small homes certainly either moved away or built bigger homes for themselves. So every homeowner who traded their small home for money and or a bigger home all felt it was better to do so.

Most of your quotes indicate that government should play a smaller role in our personal lives, yet you end suggesting that we need new rules that limit what people can do with their homes, one of the most private aspects in our nation.

Personally, I prefer a government that ensures a fairness and equality under the law, but most call this regressive and look to punish one class of people and provide assistance to others (and that assistance in the modern economy, sadly, goes more often to the rich than the poor, which just shows you how messed up such socialist thinking works in a capitalist society).

There’s no such thing as forced charity. Government is not of the people as it reserves many rights to itself that people could never do themselves: 1) take your money; 2) force you to move; 3) imprison you; 4) kill you; and 5) force you to kill others (or else #3).

The number of laws, taxes, regulations and ordinances only grows with time. These all erode liberty in the name of the common good, though very often it’s just imposing one group’s morality on another, or taking one group’s money and giving it to another.

Laws and regulations should strictly be in place only to prevent one party from harming another. Absent a victim, we’d be better to allow people to be free to do as they please.

Fair taxation would impose the same rate on all people for all goods and not claim that one item is “bad” and should be taxed more, while another item is “good” and should get a lower tax or no tax at all. Such fair taxation is called regressive because the poor are not as wealthy as the rich, which is rather self evident. Unfortunately, without fair taxation, we end up with government corruption because there are so many incentives to help one group take the money of another.

Of course, I have no delusions that such ideals would ever come into play. In many ways, the U.S. was more free in previous generations, but of course, those generations managed to oppress whole classes of people (non-whites, poor, immigrants, women, homosexuals) too. Liberty is hard, and many people just can’t stomach the choices and preferences of others, so we get laws and taxes to oppress them. Oh well….