The government does not exist to rubberstamp your ideology.

One might class this as a core belief of mine. I think there should be (federal and state/provincial) governments, but I don’t think they exist solely to sign off on a given agenda.

I don’t believe abortion is a federal issue.

I don’t believe teaching creationism vs. evolution is a federal issue.

I will use those two above examples to illustrate my discontent with accepted party lines on these matters. Regarding abortion, I think that instead of lobbying the government to cut checks for women who want abortions or attempting to enforce a federal law that states can and will weaken at their own whims, women should collectively organise to raise funds for abortion and/or contraceptive support. If abortion were a state issue, I would expect and frankly contribute towards women pooling money and time and other resources towards helping other girls and women get those abortions or contraceptives they needed if they lived in a state where these things were outlawed.

Yet, when I suggest this kind of thing, people get very irate with me and insist that the government should serve their goals. They start talking about ‘privilege to have a car to drive across a border with’ and other such things. The entire issue is reduced to a perverse binary in which either there is a check cut from on high (federally) or individual women exercise privilege and go travel as needed to get abortions and/or contraceptives.

There are middle grounds, but they require individuals working privately towards collective goals, without expecting the government to approve their ideology.

Regarding school teachings, I feel much the same way. You want all the theories of evolution taught (dirty little secret: there’s more than one)– pool resources and build you a school. Likewise for creationism in all its forms.

Supporting people in need can be done by individuals being willing to pool their resources. The false narrative that the government has to pay for it or else it cannot happen stifles grassroots efforts.

For me it is obvious that you ask many individuals privately to work towards a common goal by sharing resources– it is fundamentally (fundamentalistically?) Christian. Christ ever asked that people share what they could for a common goal.

I think the privilege remarks in these instances are just derailing tactics, to avoid the issues of having to work with and share resources with those of other colors and backgrounds– to put money where your ideology is. It’s easy to talk about a right to abortion when your goal is to have ‘the government’ pay for it– other people still, but faceless enough that they don’t count.

Kinda different when you have to canvass neighborhoods full of people not like you to get the money together for women in need. It’s harder, and it takes more time to set up useful and flexible infrastructures. But that doesn’t mean it cannot be done. Again, likewise with school-teachings. It is harder to advocate for creationism or evolution if you aren’t expecting the government to rubberstamp your views on the matter and fund it anonymously.

Some would say, but is not a government a collection of individuals? Is not this suggestion to organise in groups a simulacrum of government? And I would say– it is altogether a different thing when you have to learn all the names of the people you’re asking for money from. And government-reliance means never having to go that far. It is always ever about distancing yourself from the source of support, be it in cash or time or other things. Always making sure that it’s impersonal, that you never have to look anyone in the face and state your case and beliefs.

I say embrace the difficulty, and the challenge. Find out what you love and are willing to sacrifice for, and do that. Don’t wait on a wilfully impersonalised third party. And if you will not truly offer yourself for others, then maybe you should lay off the vehement advocacy that relies on quasi-anonymous government cash to succeed.