Re: shuttle disaster

[DvB <imasu@earthlink.net>]

Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:

> On Fri, 2003-02-07 at 17:01, DvB wrote:
> > Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
<snip>
> > > It seems as if there's a lot of (US) Americans on the list who think
> > > that Federal projects are a very good way to solve many/most of
> > > society's ills, and thus taxes are a Good Thing.  Likewise, there 
> > > seems to be another faction that thinks that gov't mostly can't find
> > > it's arse with both hands, a map, a flashlight (electric torch), and
> > > GPS, and thus excess taxes are a Bad Thing, because, by and large,
> > > the Private & NGO sectors can do a more efficient job with the money.
> > 
> > In that case, you should probably move to do away with the
> > government. The government is, by definition, a way for society to pool
> > its resources for the common good (mostly by providing services like law
> > enforcement, education, health care, utilities and
> > transportation). Governments also aren't normally able to pull money out
> > of their arses (even if they could find them with both hands, a map, a
> > flashlight and a GPS) and, hence, rely on specific sources of income
> > (mostly taxes) to implement and run these services.
> [snip large rant]
> 
> Note I used the word "excess" when referring to that position on The
> Issue Of Government Competence.
> 
> Only anarchists believe that government should not exist, and American
> conservatives & libertarians are most emphatically *not* anarchists.
> They more or less believe in a limited Federal government.
> 

I'm not pretending to know what you do or don't want or advocate, but it
seems to me that when most people talk about a "limited Federal
government," they're talking about one that provides only the services
they want/need and none of the services any other tax payer
wants/needs. If the government implements a program that they,
personally, don't need or use, it's automatically "excess spending."

Since you bring up the *Federal* government specifically, I must say I
wouldn't necessarily be against giving more autonomy to state
governments. I'll be the first to say that the Federal government in the
US has done a lot of damage by imposing certain policies on the states.

Once again, if cutting taxes is going to put the government $300B in the
hole, they need to cut some programs and I don't think there're many
that can be justified being cut. Of course, I also don't pretend to know
much about the Federal budget, what programs are/aren't needed or how
much they should cost. If I had that kind of fiscal knowledge, I'd run
for public office.