From: larry@boris.webo.dg.com (Larry Rogers)
Subject: Re: RAISE THOSE TAXES AGAIN
Date: 11 Dec 92 12:46:42
	<LARRY.92Nov30164104@boris.webo.dg.com> <7HM=jZ=@engin.umich.edu>
	<jcw.723500436@oblio> <-sP=V8#@engin.umich.edu> <randall.723847953@seashore>
	<wdQ=qL+@engin.umich.edu>
Organization: Data General, Westboro, Mass.


In article <wdQ=qL+@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:


    Jim> I only see this as an argument to limit state and local
    Jim> government as well.  I don't see this as a valid argument for
    Jim> government control from an even more remote organization.

Then, who builds the roads, you and me?  I guess the road from my
house to the nearest "federal" highway would constitute my driveway.

    Jim> People get the government they deserve.  At least with state

No, sometimes it is much worse.  I do not deserve Clinton.  I did not
vote for him.

    Jim> and local governments, people have the reasonable option to
    Jim> move elsewhere and still live in a mostly free country.  In

Moving is so easy for people, isn't it.  Very good solution, for those
that can afford it or those that do not have family/career
obligations. 

    Jim> other words, at the state and particularly the local level,
    Jim> there is almost a marketplace of governments.

Buy your government.  Oh please.  Governments do better and worse with
cycles of their own economies.  Currently, Mass. is on a downer, while
Oregon is doing well.  Ten years ago the reverse was true.  So I am
supposed to be some kind of gypsy gambling on where the best managed
government or the one with the benefit of the most successful
industries is and moving there.  

    Jim> Why?  Why is a particular locality entitled to exist?  There
    Jim> are many ghost towns throughout the United States.  They
    Jim> ceased to exist because they were no longer economically
    Jim> viable.  I see no reason to artificially support a particular
    Jim> locality with federal money.  If it can support itself, it
    Jim> shouldn't exist.  Most cities are not so remote that it is a
    Jim> major hardship to move if the area goes under.

And if one state is not doing well right now because, for example, the
defense industry is downsized (eg California), we should just
completely discard that state.  Indeed, this conversation is getting
quite silly.  Your argument basically leads to a statement of no
federal government because states should support themselves, no state
government because localities should support themselves, and no local
government because each individual should be doing everything for him
or herself.  Government is designed for cooperative effort among its
constituents towards common objectives.  Do you lop off your arm if it
is not functioning well this week?  Do you shoot your neighbor if you
have a disagreement because that is your interpretation of justice?
Let's not be absurd here.  I am sure the federal government does much
more for your state than you know, and the other states benefit your
state much more than you know.

--
    @@               Larry Rogers               *
   @@@               Larry_Rogers@dg.com        *   Big Brother
   @@@ &&&           larry@boris.webo.dg.com    *   is Watching
    @@ &&            Data General  508-870-8441 * 

The opinions contained herein are my own, and do not reflect the
opinions of Data General or anyone else, but they should.

"Sometimes we are the windshield, sometimes we are the bug"
   Dire Straits
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.bush,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc