1. I think the real debate is over whether the government's
"trusteeship" over our money is too extensive and encompassing such
that we, as the owners of the money, appear to have little or no
rights over it at all.
2. Your analogy is not quite correct. We are not children. We are
adult citizens, and I don't believe we adults like to be treated
like children, as the government sometimes treats us.
Moreover, you seek to characterise paternalistic government and
"care-less" government as two polar opposites, with the former as
the obvious choice. This is misleading. The opposite of a
paternalistic government is not an apathetic government. A
government can be caring and yet not paternalistic. A good, caring
government lets people make their own choices and helps them to
achieve their aims, provided these do not interfere with the
interests, well-being and safety of others. A caring government
does not tell people how to live their lives and force them to
comply with that rigid paradigm of what life is.
