From the haves to the have nots?
Yet, when I think about private property, I know for certain that no person has the right to hold a gun up to another person demanding that they give some of what belongs to them to others. The government has a gun.
So, where's the balance - where's the point at which we help those needing it - but not at the expense of those earning it. I struggle to find the magic line in the sand.
What I do know is that private charity is the best answer. To persuade those inclined to be benevolent is the most desirable means I know. Voluntary charity was the foundation of this country. We've lost so much of it because we've allowed the government to take over more and more of the responsibility of taking care of the needy - and the rest of us have gotten lazy believing that the government will do it.
One of my clients, running for office is concerned about people needing affordable housing - but shall he demand that developers create this housing at their own expense? Should they create it at the expense of the others who will be living in the development? In other words amortizing the costs to everyone else. I don't think that's right.
Yet, I know there are many deserving people desperate to live in Silicon Valley 'cause that's where they work - who can't afford our insanely high prices.
What's the answer? I'd love your input.