Re: DS Supreme Under Glass a la Gelatain
- From: Dann <detox665@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 2 Jun 2009 03:16:23 GMT
On 21 May 2009, PatONeill said the following in news:d3a28ebc-147d-4027-
b465-908e588740c3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 21, 8:13 pm, detox...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
The more serious point remains; the more the government takes, the
less it delivers and the less our civilization seems like
civilization.
This is absurd. If this were true, then the government that takes
nothing would be the government that delivered the most; of course,
how it would pay for what it delivers is an interesting question. Are
you under the belief that a "civilization" in which only the rich can
afford an education, only the rich get adequate health care, only the
rich get police and fire protection (and, yes, prior to the late 19th
century that was largely the case; police departments did not
investigate crimes against the poor and fires that did not threaten
the homes and businesses of the well-off were generally permitted to
simply burn themselves out), only the rich can afford legal
representation in court, etc. is more "civilized" than what we have
now?
And again, yes, all the things I cite above are things that government
delivers to those unable to afford them.
I was not criticizing Justice Holmes. When we are talking about a
government that fulfills its primary function to defend and extend
individual liberty, taxes are the price paid for civilization. Where
government serves to the cause of justice [real justice where you keep
what you earn] then taxes are the price paid for civilization.
My intent was to cricitize the cavalier* manner that some tend to use
that particular quote as an all purpose defense against legitimate claims
that government has grown too big, spends too much money, and spends that
money poorly.
Consider the US government in Justice Holmes time. The federal budget
for 1900 was $628 million. Of which defense spending consumed $331.6
million. Then next largest spending category was "other". That is
roughly 3% of GDP.
State and local spending were so low as to be inconsequential.
In comparison, the 2000 US federal budget was a net 15% of GDP at $1,789
billion out of $9,817 billion and the state and local governments spent
almost another 18% of GDP.
Some of that increase in spending is because the world changed. It had
to change. And that means more legitimate government spending.
However, IMO there is quite a lot of that spending that is wasteful and
counterproductive.
I can't say that I'm ready to live in Justice Holmes' world where all
manner of bigotry was so cavalierly* excused. I also can't say that
we're getting anything close to our money's worth in terms of
"civilization" for what we spend today.
*I like the word. I read an article that used it today. I see no good
reason for me to suffer alone.
**there was no '**', but those concerned with spending levels might find
this little site of use: <http://www.usgovernmentspending.com>
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: DS Supreme Under Glass a la Gelatain
- Next by Date: Re: Monty 31 May: counting beats
- Previous by thread: Re: DS Supreme Under Glass a la Gelatain
- Next by thread: Re: DS Supreme Under Glass a la Gelatain
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
