Good evening Travis! Travis Pahl wrote in response to Robert Goodman...
I guess, Robert Goodman wrote: > > I'm saying the federal gov't would "shut down" again (operate under some > > emergency bills to keep necessary offices open), To which, you replied: > Which is a great demonstration to people that most things are not necessary. A collegue of mine here in Idaho wrote me during the 2000 campaign and gave me some advise to give to potential voters. At that time I was running for the District I State Senate seat. Here was his advise: Pick any large city in Idaho, Boise, Pocatello, Twin Falls. Get a telephone directory and look up all agencies in the yellow pages under Idaho State Government. Pick and choose which agencies are really important to you. Which of these agencies would you choose to fund with your own money by voluntary contribution? Well, I did that. I picked up the Coeur d'Alene telephone directory, and got a bundle of, or rather armfull of Idaho State agencies. Guess what? Outside of the local county Sheriff, the state court system (which is usually as corrupt as hell), and perhaps the Highway Department (Idaho Transpaortation Department), I couldn't find one other damn agency of State Government that I would voluntarily support with my own contribution if I had the choice in doing so! Maybe the problem is this. Maybe people really do enjoy the High School basketball games, and so, want to keep public government controlled education around just for the games, although, overall, public education in Idaho is certainly the most expensive item on the State tax budget. Not trying to be facitious here at all. Only suggesting that in the minds of most people, smaller government isn't probably an option at all. It's the 'status quo'. In Idaho that happens to be the GOP! In Massachusetts, that happens to be largely the Democrats. It seems to me, that most Americans, wherever they are, won't take the time to even try. To pick up the phonebook, and look at the agencies of Government, whether Local, State or Federal, and decide which agencies out there, they would be willing to contribute to, if they had such a choice. And, as my collegue reminded me, until they do that, smaller government is most likely not on their agenda of priorities! That's really sad. But even at the local level here, that seems to be something after all. It's all about community spirit -- supporting the 'community effort', etc. A lot of people these days see things this way. What's really important to THIS community? Are you a 'community player' -- will you play the game for the better good? Yes. This is socialism by design. And you might not be surprised, but a lot of people buy into this argument lock, stock and barrel. That's why Libertarians don't win at the election polls. The contrast in all of this is that it certainly appears that people WILL vote for issues in which they normally would not contribute to, for the sake of becoming a part of the community that cares! And I know, most people don't think through most of this very methodically either. A lot of the votes are a 'community effort', or so it seems, to be a part of something, or otherwise be ostricized from that very community. Socialogically, that seems to be the explanttion as to why most Americans do not vote for smaller government these days. Kindest regards, Frank _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
