There are people of good will and good sense who disagree with the Libertarian desire for a smaller, less costly government.
They see government spending as a net good, they see central control as a benefit, and elected authority as a comfort.
I don't get it.
I win some arguements with these folks, some arguments end prematurely, and some taper off into the weeds and thickets of guns and ObamaCare and that single mother with 5 kids who just can't make it on the minimum wage paid by greedy corporations.
In my way of thinking, I'm the best judge of how my money should be spent. And if I'm going to take someone else's money by force, it better be for a great cause. I have lots of friends and meet lots of people who don't see it that way, though.
Well, there is now an online "sincerity detector" that will be useful in these little spats. Anyone with an iPhone, iPad, or a laptop can see if their Statist friends are truly committed to the cause. (Most of the time, they're just posturing.)
If someone claims that the government is the best judge of how to spend money, send them here.
Step back.
Ask them to put up or shut up.
8 comments:
If I already paid my taxes, why should I donate?
You miss the point, to the statist the the debt always needs to be paid by someone else, someone richer, smarter, prettier, more successful than they are. Never by them, they see it as they are the downtrodden and government is there to even the score a bit by stealing from other people more desrving of being stolen from then they are.
A friend of mine actually did this. Disgusting.
WS -- I'll get back to you on this when you pledge to stop driving on publicly financed roads and pull your daughter out of a state university. Waiting until she graduates does *not* count.
Doctor,
As stated numerous times on these pages, the constitution gives Uncle Sam the right to build roads.
Even so, my preference would be private toll roads, much like we had for the first hundred years or so in most places.
Unfortunately, the government has a monopoly on streets. If I refuse to help pay for them, I get sent to jail. Since I have no choice but to use them (if I want to leave the house), then I use them. Much like the fire department, trash collection, and a few other monopolies that they enforce.
The same goes for education. If yer young'un wants to be a vet in the state of Texas, there is but one choice. The government controls the school, the licensing, the requirements, and the quantity of people going through the system.
If someone could set up a competing system, and pull A&M off the taxpayer tit, I promise you the competitor would be a far more efficient use of the education dollar.
Until then, I have to keep using what I'm FORCED to pay for !
You *choose* to use what you are "forced" to pay for. I'm paying too, and neither of my sons go to school in Texas. Such whining...
Your argument bears a remarkable similarity to the first comment.
PS - I dare you to tell a group of Aggie alumni you could build a more competitive and efficient school. I'm guessing by and large they would take exception to that statement.
Doc,
Sorry I didn't respond quicker. Am trying to make good use of my Blogspot comment summary feature in the future.
I don't believe that I could build a better school than A&M.
But I believe that the woods are absolutely full of other people who could do so.
At least 50% of the classroom instruction that The Aggie is receiving could be done online. Probably higher.
Take the cost per semester hour and divide it by the amount of time spent in class, and the hours teachers spend preparing for class, grading papers, etc. Typical prof makes 65-70K. Where in the hell does all that remaining money go? Do you know? Does anyone know? Does anyone care?
The government won't allow Kindle textbooks, because they discriminate against the blind.
But regarding your earlier comment, I promise to try this out in front of a group of Aggie alumni. (I've already done it in front of Aggie parents, to rave reviews !)
Post a Comment