1. Should cities and towns be allowed to license food stores to sell wine?Four and five are easy. Even if I weren't a war-mongering conservative, I would reject the idea of voting as symbolic gesture. Two easy nos.
2. Should candidates be able to run as the nominee of two or more parties, with their votes accumulated to determine the winner?
3. Should licensed child care givers be allowed to bargain collectively with the state subsidized child care program.
4. Should my state representative "be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon the President and Congress of the United States to end the war in Iraq immediately and bring all United States military forces home from Iraq?"
5. Should my state representative vote to petition Congress to amend the Constitution to provide Senators and Representatives for the District of Columbia?
Two is fine. One yes.
The other two are a little harder. On three, I'll probably vote no on the principle that no one should be able to collectively bargain for the state. My hesitation is based on a less creditable instinct: the state should have to suffer as it makes its citizens suffer. Amusingly, this initiative is opposed by the goo-goos, who usually scream at any attempt to stop unionization, because greater compensation for care-givers not matched by an increase in the total appropriation for childcare will decrease the availability of subsidized childcare in the Commonwealth.
Number one is the hardest decision for me. I'm sufficiently libertarian that I think that more freedom is better and people should be able to enter any legal business without interference. On the other hand, I'm conservative enough to regret the easier and less expensive availability of alcohol. Wine is less worrisome than either beer or liquor, but that is why wine was chosen. In a few years, barring disaster, they'll be back for beer.
1 comment:
We have to keep our sense of perspective.
Post a Comment