Do you ever notice how whenever there's a problem or disaster of some kind, the question is always, "Should something be done about it?" What the question actually means is: "What should the government do about it?" What I want to know is: Why don't people asking this question ask the FULL question? Instead of saying, for example: "Chrysler is going bankrupt. Should something be done about it?" they should say, "Chrysler is going bankrupt. What should the government do about it?" Or, instead of saying, "Not enough people have well-paying jobs. Something should be done about it," they should say, "Not enough people have well-paying jobs. The government should intervene and give them high-paying jobs. Plus top of the line health insurance."

I believe there's a reason for asking the question one way, but not the other. By asking the question in a general and unspecified way, the asker gets to sneak in the case for government action--for socialism or fascism, ultimately--without ever having to defend it. I, for one, am sick of this. The next time I hear somebody assert, "Well, something has to be done about it," I'm going to insist they explain WHO should do it, under what conditions (i.e. by force--or by persuasion), and for what reasons. If you value freedom and are, like me, sick of the continuing descent into socialism and fascism, I suggest you do the same.