If it were as simple as that, Germans would be happy to “share in” Greek economic woes.

Americans expect to “share in” their government as well. The government is supposed to be us, and we’re supposed to be it.

Rather, the “Enlightenment” model that has already taken over in Europe and is now trying to take over here is a model where the government is not something we “participate” in. It is something that participates in us, not the other way around.

It is our Daddy, and we are all one giant household. It will raise us, feed us, and tell us what thoughts are good to have. We are to rely on the government instead of relying on each other. When we ourselves become parents, we will nonetheless remain childlike, and depend on the government – it, not our child’s parents, will provide day care, collect the child support from our estranged other parent, and make all the decisions about every aspect of our child’s life – both the material (what our children eat) and the spiritual (what they will hold sacred).

That is only “freedom” if you define risk, potential, and adulthood itself as what one needs to be liberated from.

Because it’s such a low bar to overcome? ;D

I fancy it goes deeper than that and involves the whole concept of “limited government.”

To an American, freedom primarily means being free from interference, especially government interference. To a European, freedom primarily means sharing in the government.

The American Revolution was a rebellion against an external power, the British Crown; thereafter, strong local feeling often led to the Federal Government being seen as, in some sense, an external power.

In Europe, by contrast, in the wake of the French Revolution, government action came to be seen by the citizens, as the consummated result of their own organized wishes. Of course, Europeans can be very readily persuaded that self-serving deputies are betraying the people’s mandate, in the service of special interests; in fact, the political class is held in great contempt. Nevertheless, no one believes that curbing the powers of government is desirable, or even imaginable: the government is the appointee and agent of the people; to curb the government’s powers is to curb their own.

Do you see the slippery slope now? Almost anything can be claimed as “good for the general welfare”. Food and water are more fundamental than healthcare–or are intrinsic to it–why then should anyone continue to have to buy their own food?

Ultimately what is under discussion is whether the Constitution is to remain a document that limits government, or will it become a document that limits people.

Which is a less flattering way of comparing liberty as negative or positive – freedom or free goodies.

If a tax, could such a tax on inactivity be justified?

The government recognises the importance of food by regulating and subsidising its production, regulating and monitoring its quality and, in time of war or national emergency, setting prices and rationing it.

By that same logic, I could argue that eating, drinking, and having electricity and internet is part of my “general welfare”. I will therefore forward all those bills–grocery, utilities, etc. to the government. And since our tax dollars are what the government uses to pay for things, those costs should be carried by you.

Do you see the slippery slope now? Almost anything can be claimed as “good for the general welfare”. Food and water are more fundamental than healthcare–or are intrinsic to it–why then should anyone continue to have to buy their own food?

Since he warned us upfront, you should have stopped reading past that point, if you didn’t want his opinion.