Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 3/20/01 6:45:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, jbone@jump.net
> writes:
>
> << Why shouldn't I have similar expectations of performance with the
> federal gov't, in whom I'm "investing" my tax dollars? >>
>
> who told you you were investing? you're paying for services across a
> community, as are we all.
I'm not "paying for" those services, either --- that implies consent. Rather,
that money is being stolen from me (and you) and fed to a ravenous and
expanding bureaucracy that thinks it knows better than I (or you) do what kinds
of services are needed, when in fact my (or your) utilization of many of those
services is minimal at best, and even the indirect benefits from those services
are questionable.
It's bullshit.
Here's a thought: take the income tax form, put a list of departments and
federal programs on it, and let people allocate percentage-wise their own tax
dollars across programs as they see fit. I might still not like the idea of an
income tax in general, but at least that would make it much more palatable.
Ala carte government funding! Sure would simplify everything, and the results,
IMO, would be quite acceptable to everybody except those who benefit from
government spending disproportionally to their own contributions to its
revenue.
> if you want a frictionless government, go find
> yourself a dictatorship. me, i'm thankful for the traction.
You silly federalist apologists. Anytime anybody points out the warts on your
beloved BigGov system, you resort to this third-grade tactic. The implication
is that this is as good as it gets. I'm not buying it, this is a pretty shitty
system we've got going here, there's lots of room for improvement.
Frictionless government neither implies nor requires dictatorship.
jb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:14:36 PDT