I'm certainly not a libertarian. I do sympathize with a number of
libertarian views on social issues and civil liberties, since I also
believe that the government should butt out of people's bedrooms,
wombs, phone conversations, library borrowings, and so forth.

But when it comes to fiscal issues, no way! I don't believe in the
"patronage" system, as it requires you to suck up to the rich person
or corporation that's funding you, and it creates an unequal relationship
between benefactor and recipient. Look at PBS - it gets more and more
commercial and corporate as it depends more on big donations from
major companies, and less and less on government funding. It's sad.

Charities help, but they're inadequate. If we had to depend solely on
charity, how could we assure that everything that needs funding will
be funded? If the benefactors get to choose who/what to fund, under
what conditions they will fund, how much to fund, and how long to fund
it, all according to their preferences, then how many necessary programs
will fall through the cracks simply because nobody happened to care
about them? That's how it is already, when we still have *some*
government funding for programs. Imagine how it would be if there was
no source of money at all except the hoped-for goodwill of rich people?

Our health care system, which depends largely on the benevolence of
employers (who are not required by law to offer any kind of insurance),
is a massive failure. Millions of people are uninsured. You don't see
these companies reaching out to offer health insurance to people who
don't work for them. Why should they? They only offer the benefits
because that's what the market dictates. If that ever changes - and
it already is changing, as companies offer less and less and charge
their employees more and more - how are people going to pay for
health care?

We all benefit from living in a society - that's what civilization is.
I don't see compulsory taxation as "spending money on someone else",
because I am as much a beneficiary of that spending as anyone is. I
see taxes, ideally, as spending money on society as a whole - on our
community, our infrastructure, on making sure everyone's needs are met,
including my own. So I believe that I, along with everyone who lives
in and benefits from society, have a responsibility to contribute to
that. Some people contribute willingly, while others might not feel
they have any obligation, even as they drive on the roads, go to the
schools, have their garbage collected and their streets cleaned and
their fires put out and their kids protected from predators, all at
the expense of the public.

Joyce

Sorry you are feeling so totally disenfranchised.

But, seriously, if not the government, who?

Jo

LOL, no. :) Not *this* government. This government is corrupt and
criminal. I don't want the same people who lied about weapons of mass
destruction, and who allowed people to rot in New Orleans, to organize
pet rescues. I'm with you on that one.

But just because I hate our current government doesn't mean I believe
the *idea* of government is bad. A government is only as good as the
people who are working in it. And we do theoretically have the right to
elect the people we think will do the job as we think it should be done,
even if about half the people in this country don't bother to exercise it.

I still believe that we need some structure for raising the funds we
need to run the country, and to make sure all citizens are taken care of.
Whether that structure is of the form originally thought up by Jefferson,
et al, or something entirely different, doesn't negate the fact that
we do need *something*, some way to keep the country running.

Joyce

I'm sorry, I had no idea that you were in New Orleans before/during
Katrina.  I wasn't, and have no idea what exactly happened other than
what people claimed and the news showed.  If I believed the news, I'd
think that all the cops there were corrupt, only blacks stayed behind to
loot the place, in fact that everyone who stayed behind were either
totally poor or looters, that very few people evacuated their pets, and
those who didn't remove their pets also didn't spay or neuter them, that
most of those receiving Red Cross funds were abusing the system, that
FEMA did absolutely nothing to help out at all, that only the poor and
casinos lost their houses, and that none of the upper class are
re-building.  I think we all know that this is not real.

I for one would love to read a truly objective assessment of the Katrina
situation. covering more than just New Orleans and the Mississippi
coast.  There are a lot of little places that took it in the shorts that
we don't hear about and I'd like to know if they got help and how much
and what kind of help they got.  While I don't have a high opinion of
FEMA after the way they handled Floyd some years back, I would like to
see something more objective and constructive.

Pam S.