But to put up those strawmen to argue against means people don't have to address the valid positions of those who want the least possible govt necessary
Both of these are not rebuttals of the posts they are written as responses to, or as following a succession. Assuming that they are meant to appear that way, they are, in fact, characterized by Strawmen. To reiterate:
To force the government to rely on donations is, effectively to shut the government down. Or to give complete control of it to private interests.
But as I said, the idea is crude. These ideas, "smaller government," "no taxation," etc, these are things which everyone could get behind perhaps. But good slogans don't necessarily make good, practical solutions.
A slogan always underscores a larger principle. I don't know a soul who has proposed to force the government to rely on donations, for instance. But those of us who point out that in most things, the private sector will spend its money more efficiently and effectively for all than any government can, may encapsulate that concept into a statement such as:
To want taxes that are necessary to fund a necessary government and otherwise leaves the people with the money they earn to use as they choose to use it is not the same thing as wanting no taxes.
And when you are dealing with a government who wants to take more and more of the money we earn or acquire to spend as the government sees fit, it provides more and more incentive to freedom loving people to want very much to be free of that government. And, when the entitlement mentality becomes so entrenched to seemingly give that government a shelf life of a slab of granite, THEN we have visions of seceding and having the government that the rest of us want.
It was a response to a post which is, and has been many times, quoted.
The indented text is irrelevant to anything written above, despite it possibly appearing relevant to some if they read the above without paying attention. More directly, what all (truly) of the posts who have responded to mine above so far have made it appear that it meant, was not what it meant.
But whatever.
The private sector, in general, I suppose, spends it's money more efficiently but also, again speaking generally, has only one purpose, to make money, for the CEO or otherwise and, ideally, for the shareholders, though a noticeable amount of the time will not quite do that. And, very simply, police forces, fire squads, these things are money pits.
But in response to the likely feeling in your writing, if you want these things to be privatized, because then these government entities would spend their cash more efficiently, what the private sector as a whole also does, in addition to making the reduction of expenses a high priority, over whatever relevant period of time, is give better service to those who would pay more money for it, and perhaps none at all to those who would only be able to pay the least.
If you don't care about that, then so be it. But a large amount of people would, for (obviously), as one moves down the income brackets, the associated population is greater and greater.
So, while the 'point' of your whole post can't be characterized the exact same way as the others ("slogans"), it's pretty close. A simple statement (the private sector spends money more efficiently) also doesn't necessarily translate into a practical plan.
Also, as far as keeping government to a level that is 'neccesary,' as before:
Last edited:
