I have three comments to make in response to Opinion page articles published on May 30.
I would respond to Robert Reich's article, which called for large U.S. corporations to be held responsible for raising living standards within the United States. He seems to be saying that the government should force his opinion on these firms by use of taxing and regulatory authority.
I ask, at what point in a small single-person startup company does a person become responsible to provide for solving another person's living standards? Should his own striving to provide for his family be superceded by what Reich thinks is owed to others?
What becomes of the entrepreneurial spirit, when we proscribe to any company what its responsibility is to provide for those who provided no work or effort in the building of the business? It is not unreasonable to redefine tax laws to stop a multinational company from skating tax responsibility regardless of where it does business. But we should not regulate where it can incorporate or call home.
In Kelly Watkinson letter to the editor outlining why the county has developed conservation easements, I would encourage those drawing up the guidelines to provide for some limited public usage of land that is given tax breaks. Suggested items could include a walking path along waterways or property boundaries along roads or railroads.
Finally, In Jonah Goldberg's article, "It takes two to end a war," he suggests that word usage makes a difference in defining who we are at war with. Reducing things to the ridiculous (we would not be at war with the missile shot at us) is not in keeping with the point he is making. This point was to justify not calling terrorism for what it is, regardless of the perpetrator, be it a state or independent groups of ideologues. His point overall is valid, but couched in a vision that is not related to what is and will be how terror will be spread globally if we desist in our perseverance against such groups.
John Chroniger, New Market