It is the writer of this editorial who is being inconsistent.
Here's the comment I left:
"Government exists, in part, to deliver essential services,"For a while it was commonly accepted that only the government should do things like education and roads. But now there is a growing movement away from that view. Will we ever reach the stage where the idea of a complete separation between the state and things like education is a popular one? It's the way we did things in this country at one time.
NO. Government exists to protect individual rights.
"Only government is equipped to remove snow from public property"
Here's part of the problem, right here. Over the past century, an idea has been cultivated that only the government can and should do things like build and maintain roads. Yet, prior to that, it was commonly accepted that it was perfectly okay for private concerns to do that - and, in fact, most roads were privately built.
This is where the real debate should be: should the government be involved in things like education, health, roads - and, yes, snow removal - at all?
A government that does step beyond its constitutional mandate must inevitably violate the rights of citizens. If those rights are to have any meaning at all they must be held to be inviolable.
What would it take to get back to that? This is the discussion we should be having.