In a multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious secular environment, personal mores and values should extend quite a ways from the minimum amount that we can all agree on. Traditionally communities have addressed moral issues through the use of volunteer-based civic groups.

I like this idea because the majority is not forcing it's definition of morality onto the minority. It also does not involve going to a local or national politician to make a moral case why charity money should be spent one way or another. It does not promote "one size fits all" solutions that are supposed to be applicable in wildly varying conditions. In addition, it seems that politicians can get elected simply on the moral persuasion of their arguments instead of their practicality, which is leading us to make promises we can never afford to pay for.

I'm for doing something about healthcare, for instance, because I think the buying and selling of health services is not happening in anything like a free market. Most people don't have anything to do with the cost of healthcare (other than paying insurance premiums), and there is virtually no shopping around for services. So the buyer doesn't use his own money, there is no open pricing, and there is no competition on price or quality. In addition, if a company developed a pill that cost a million dollars but let you live to be 150? It's obvious that there are multiple, legitimate players involved that each should have an equal say.

So please don't take my response as "there's nothing wrong." It's broken, but not everything that is broken needs an immediate, rubber-stamp solution. We work best in complicated environments by setting goals, iterating, re-factoring, trying different solutions -- all things that centralized solutions do not offer.