Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

ahem. wrote:I thought people who advocate smaller government were mostly opposed to large federal (and sometimes state) laws and programs, but appreciated local/city government initiatives and programs. Apparently I am a bit confused.

I am opposed to government at any level providing services or functions that can and ought to be performed privately. Local governments allow individuals more opportunities to make their voices heard and control what is done. They also allow the project or program to be more intelligently applied to local problems and needs. But no, local or city government initiatives and programs can be just as wrong-headed as national programs. Outside of a few, well-defined activities the less my local government meddles in private affairs, the better.

thebigcheese wrote: You know, this is where it gets really interesting. I suppose growth is a good thing if you want to be a big city. But you're a small town guy, so it makes sense that you would be opposed to big city improvements. Nothing wrong with that; some people like their one-stoplight town. But I grew up in Houston, which has a population of somewhere between 4 to 6 million (depending on whether you include all the suburbs), so for me, Provo is pretty small and it lacks some of the amenities that I consider normal (since I grew up in a place that has everything). With all the improvements that they're making in Provo and Salt Lake (recreation center, library, performing arts venue, freeway expansion, high speed train, museum of natural history, etc)...I just think, why did it take them this long to do that? Houston had all those things. Dozens of recreation centers, libraries, and arts venues. Freeways with something like 8 lanes each way. Maybe I need to spend some time living in a small town...

I grew up in a Washington D.C. suburb. I lived in big cities on my mission. Not everyone likes living in a small town, and that is okay. I prefer it, and I think there are social costs (more crime, more poverty, more despair, more educational dropouts, more teen pregnancies, more social alienation, and more...liberalism) to high density populations. Not that all small towns are ideal, by any means. My current small town with a high precentage of college graduates, is not typical.

thebigcheese wrote:It seems to serve the purpose of making you feel better about your personal contribution, but I think the issue of "where MY money is going" is more of an emotional issue than a logical one. I think it's more logical to think about where THE money is going because that's how taxes operate.

Be careful, you are starting to attack me. This is where I disagree with a number of people. They would like you to think that it is not your money that is being spent, but just government money, or as you put it just "THE" money. The government has no money except what they take from individuals, or groups of individuals. Taxes come from what was once someone's personal money. And they have no constitutional right to take your property from you except for specific purposes. You need to keep that in mind.

thebigcheese wrote: On a grander scale, it's still worth noting that some people have quite a lot more money than others, so that translates to more deciding power. I think my argument still stands because ultimately, the wealthy have the most to contribute. Also, some people just don't have the personal pocketbook to support the things they value, even if they'd like to. Besides, even if everyone contributes small amounts to the things they like, the popular ones still win out over the others.

Nothing wrong with any of this, in my opinion.

thebigcheese wrote:Maybe you're the only guy in all of California who supported the "Keep the Dirt Roads Foundation." So they are under-funded and can't operate because no one else cares. Majority rules.

Never heard of "Keep the Dirt Roads Foundation." But if no one else cares, what right have they to demand other people pay for their pet project?

thebigcheese wrote: I'm not sure if that's a good idea or a bad idea, but I'd be curious to see how much money California actually gets from that strategy. On the one hand, I can't imagine that they would get very much money at all. But on the other hand, I can think of several different things I would personally contribute to. Parks and recreation is one example. But that's probably obvious by now.

I've also been curious to see how much money California actually takes in with this strategy. Probably not too hard to look it up, but I'm not going to take the time this morning to find out. If you are curious you might look for yourself. Here are the listed funds you can contribute to on your California Income Tax Return:
California Seniors Special Fund
Alzheimer's Disease/Related Disorders Fund
California Fund for Senior Citizens
Rare and Endangered Species Preservation Program
State Children's Trust Fund for the Prevention of Child Abuse
California Breast Cancer Research Fund
California Firefighters' Memorial Fund
Emergency Food for Families Fund
California Peace Officer Memorial Foundation Fund
California Military Family Relief Fund
California Sea Otter Fund
California Ovarian Cancer Research Fund
Municipal Shelter Spray-Neuter Fund
California Cancer Research Fund
ALS/Lou Gehrig's Disease Research Fund

Don't get me wrong, though. California spends lots of tax payer money on causes I don't approve of. But at least in these fifteen cases it is voluntary whether you contribute to the fund or not.

Marduk wrote:Just a snippet to say that no one can entirely support the argument of "I should decide where my money is going." It is a nice sound bite, but one that is too extreme to exist in reality. Even the most libertarian among us believes that government should have SOME role, and that role necessarily has a monetary cost. We must all be willing to give up some fiduciary liberty to protect life and property.

It goes without saying, Marduk.

Just trying to keep the conversation from getting to platitudinal. I think that's what hurt both you and I in the past, sir. (By hurt, I mean impeded in productive discussion.)

Will somebody correct my logic if it's wrong?

I have a friend who is so hard core libertarian he borders on anarchist. He says that if we were to eliminate our government entirely and return to the "state of nature" quality of life would improve, as the invisible hand would ensure that private roads, utilities, and armies would provide services much more efficiently than our current system.

While this may or may not be true, my argument is that man started out in the "state of nature" and that government was the result. I figure that if it were eliminated, it would just be a matter of time before something just like government would fill the gap.

Have him read some John Locke. Also, have him re-read Adam Smith, as he's quite confused about it. But yes, what we'd see is small groups crop up, combine, split apart, make treaties, etc. Eventually a similar make-up would occur.