[Mrs. Don-o]

There's a sense, though, in which market forces and contract law are not sufficient to account for the--- shall we say, informal or customary --- ties of mutual aid which link the generations.

I should like to aid young people in learning, even if I am not their paid teacher and even if they are not "my" young people. Likewise they should expect to learn from elders, and feel themselves bound in some way to honor elders, just on the basis of a general, intergenerational respect.

The ties that bind us to each other, person to person, gender to gender and generation to generation, are mostly customary rather than legal. We owe so much to others just by being begotten and born, that we could never think to put most of our relations on a pay-for-service or "enforceable" basis.

[CSM]

"The ties that bind us to each other, person to person, gender to gender and generation to generation, are mostly customary rather than legal. We owe so much to others just by being begotten and born, that we could never think to put most of our relations on a pay-for-service or "enforceable" basis."

I can agree with this as well, but what you describe is a voluntary situation, not a mandated situation enforced with the threat of jail. My beef is that the attributes you describe are good for society, but that the government's only role should be to allow people to freely make the decisions.

Using government force only absolves people of their true responsibilities in maintaining a good and decent society. Why should I give to charity when I already give thousands to the government to give to the "less fortunate?"

Government forced morality, cheapens morality.