Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
"I support the idea of police protecting me from crime. I just don't want to pay for it."
"I support the concept of a military. I just don't want to pay for it."
"I support the FDA testing and approving safe drugs. I just don't want to pay for it."
"I support... well, just about ANYTHING... I just don't want to pay for it."
/sarcasm
SIGH
Mr Mephisto
|
Well then, the question becomes "Is there a point at which we are spending too much and need to make choices on what to fund?"
The numbers are thrown around in such a manner that we become numb to it. California (a state that continues to teter on bankruptcy) decided to spend $3 Billion on stem cell research. I live here and feel that there is almost no accountability for that money. As with other such political money, it will probobally go to the virtual brother in law of the chairman of the fund. And what if it was $1 Billion or $10 Billion? What is the prudent amount? People don't want to make choices. Instead, they would like mother government to pay for it.
Police and Military are true public goods that are tough to have a free market solution for although I always tend to favor a local community funding their own police so they can have a say in accountability of their local force. It tends to be a model for spending for me. Now the FDA, I don't see a lot of reason that we can't find a free market solution to its funding. Pharmaceutical companies are making plenty of money and get the benefit of the FDAs work. Maybe a sliding scale where 1st year drugs are "taxed" a little more heavily than in subsequent years but their sales continue to carry a portion of money that goes to an independant FDA. This is one model that I am suggesting as an example - not an ideal. The reason I suggest it though is to show a situation where the heavy user of the service is is proportionally funding its use. Then the money doesn't first wash through the buracracy machine, get pissed away and then funded.
My favorite quote on the subject has a small amount of debate on who said it. Either way it fits the situation really well.
Quote:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.
Alexander Tyler, (in his 1770 book, Cycle of Democracy): OR More likely
The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic, published in 1776. Sir Alexander Tytler, a Scottish jurist and historian who lived from 1742-1813
|
To dismiss those words are to see them come true. Think about them for a moment even if you don't agree that we are too that stage. I think we have crossed the line with spending. I think the only thing I hope for in this conversation is to have folks see that there IS a line, regardless of whether they think we can still spend more or not. I would be interested in your thoughts
Mr. Mephisto as I have and continue to see you as open minded and fair.