I like and reflect their attitude.
People still think they can pick and choose when the gov gets into their bedroom or body.
I know of progs that love Bloomberg’s big gulp ban but scream about how pot should be legalized.
Or members of the “Eat the Rich” and “F the Police” supporting May Issue and disliking the “commoners” carrying.
But yeah, the status quo is a comfort. Especially if those telling you that the status quo can’t last aren’t offering painless or functional solutions.
One snipe about the end there.
People may be telling pollsters that they want less government, but they are not voting for it.
They want less goverment when it comes to telling them *not to do* things they want to do.
They want more goverment when it comes to *paying for* things they want to do.
They are voting against the Other Guy’s version of it. They’re scared. They should be; we should all be scared of both versions of it.
I can’t stop thinking about the tens of billions of dollars spent on changing nothing. There is so much mass to government (especially when you consider all layers of government: local, state and federal) and the mass is near equally divided and pushing in opposite directions. The more money one side gets, the more the other side rallies to make it equal, so each election cycle will waste more than the last. It is like hundreds of locomotives pushing against each other at full throttle, and consider how much fuel it takes to move an inch. To me, this is the biggest reason why government is such a waste. Though the lack of competition is often mentioned as the reason why private sector is more efficient- I find infighting to be the more compelling reason. The government is representative of the entire populous. And the entire populous is never going to agree on anything! so there is always be a tremendous amount of fighting.
This is why I am a libertarian. It is not that some of the things liberals want to do aren’t noble causes. Helping those less fortunate is virtuous, and the right thing to do. But the wrong thing to do is spend all your time and money forcing someone who doesn’t want to help others, because the people who get screwed by that fighting are the people who need help. “Romney doesn’t care about poor people, so let’s donate 181 million dollars in one month alone to his opponent.” Gee, you think poor people could have used that money? And the right is preaching fiscal responsibility while blowing just as much money on airtime.
Charity shouldn’t be government’s role: it should be the role of charity. That way everyone who cares about middle class grad students not having to pay for their own birth control pills can donate their money to a charity that buys birth control for middle class grad students- and there is no fighting over it, so things get done. And if you are going to get all hung about some rich a-hole who thinks people should buy their own birth control pills like they did, then that means your cause isn’t your biggest priority. “Charity can’t get it done”, they say, but obviously government isn’t getting it done because we have charities. If you freed up the tax money that could now be directed to charities, it would be pretty amazing what could be done.
Anyway, the world will never work that way, so I should put the pipe down and get off my soap box.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
CAPTCHA Code *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>