You have an excellent point.

Hmm.... well, I'm kinda s "small-guvmint" guy, but I'll set that aside for a moment, and consider this -

Part of the problem, it seems to me, in relation to what you just said, is that sometimes we don't really know where we stand with these guys. I mean, with the feds versus the states versus the locals, and who owns what - that kind of thing.

I think you raise an excellent point about "coming to depend on the federal government", and the follow-up suggestion which is (I'm paraphrasing just so you can bounce back if I'm missing your point) that this eventually leads to an "expectation" and even a "desire" for the federal government to somehow magically "take care of things" (whatever "things" anyone may think they're supposed to be taking care of at any given moment) -

I mean, Katrina might be an example in this space, yes? Part of the whole deal was the confusion over jurisdiction and so on - and I think that's true "more generally", when it comes to this issue over "who owns what" and what level of the government the responsibility belongs -

So from that viewpoint, I'd certainly favor a "minimal" or "small" government, so then I could be "reasonably expected" not to expect anything from the government - and so fine - we both know what to expect and everyone's happy -

But so the problem with that, is that now we have the "social justice" types, who'll raise issues like Edwards and Hillary are doing, that it's somehow a "moral responsibility" of government to provide universal access to quality healthcare for all Americans - and you know, they tell these heart-wrenching stories like about this guy who couldn't get his cleft palate fixed until he was 50, so basically he couldn't talk for 50 years just 'cause he didn't have any insurance -

And to that I say - well, I'm sorry and I feel for the guy, I really do - but what does that have to do with politics? How does that represent an overwhelming social need in which the government needs to get involved? That sounds like a personal issue to me, not one that engages "We the People". But, the social-justice types feel differently, they think the feds ought to get more involved in "partnerships" like this, and they know new entitlements are costly but they feel the cost is worth it (or I guess they must feel that way, 'cause they keep voting for it).....

See, but those two examples I just gave you - Katrina and the cleft-palate guy - are like opposite sides of the same coin, 'cause in one case I'm saying "the government should get involved because there's a common issue", and in the other case I'm saying "the government shouldn't get involved because there isn't a common issue" - and somewhere in there, there is an obvious ethical and political disconnect, isn't there?

I mean, think about it.

There's an answer though, and it is: that the latter acquires social significance through "multiplicity" - I mean, it's kinda the same argument they used during Prohibition, and to get all the dangerous drugs illegalized during the 20's and 30's.

In "my" eyes, that answer is fallacious - but other people feel differently, and I'm certainly willing to consider opinions on that one, 'cause as you can see, a lot of this stuff is "right on the border" ethically and morally, and as far as I'm concerned those are some of the more interesting puzles in politics.