X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 02:34:44 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Other People's Money (was Inaugural costs...)
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >I think the issue is interesting because it seems as if people are
> >these days just as concerned about how "private" money (i.e., big business
> >donations, political group money, special interest group money) is spent,
> >as they are about "public" money (taxpayers' money).  In other words,
> >people seem to be thinking about responsible ways to spend both "private"
> >and "public" money.

> Public money is (usually) just private money that has been taken from
> the person who earned it.

Now hoss, I know what you're talking about, but I think you got a
theoretical problem here. You seem to hold the government as something
inflicted upon us, and 'us' as a group of people connected only by
proximity and a somewhat common language.

Now, if you really believe that, that is fine. I'd say "stop paying
taxes if you don't wish to play by our rules. cut yourself off from
our society." (You will notice that this advice won't cut it with the
IRS, but if you build a cabin in Bumphuck Alaska and eat fish, carabou
and wild berries, your income will be negligable.)

However, while you do that, I'd thank you not to drive on my roads
or come to any public funded hospital when you get sick when this
happens, since you no longer assist society in their upkeep. While
we are at it, I think you owe a chunk of your fish and berries, as
well as some carabou jerky, to us for paying for the army and police
forces that keep people driving around in gangs like in Somalia and
keep people from invading this nation. You cut yourself off from us
but you still reap the benefits of our collective organization.

Face it, buddy, you're with us and without the society, warts and
all (and some of those warts are cancerous), whose active face is
our government, warts etc., you'd be in a far different situation.

> >It seems to me that people who hold these views (admittedly, not everyone
> >does -- I'm not sure if I do myself) are starting to view both
> >"public" and "private" money as "our" money.  All of it.  There seems to
> >be a feeling that "private" money ought to be used for the public good
> >just as "public" money should.

> I have no problem with people "thinking" of or suggesting
> responsible ways to spend both public and private money. What
> troubles me is when people use the coercive power of government
> to control (steal) other people's (private) money when
> they can't obtain such control voluntarily. Example: the
> landowner's plea bargain in a recent environmental "crime" case
> (Tudor Farms) included a one-mllion dollar fine paid to the
> National Wildlife Federation and an equal fine paid to the govt.
> I don't think this is an isolated case.



> Another example is ILOTAs: Interest on Lawyer's Own (?) Trust Accounts.
> These are accounts containing pooled money held in trust by an attorney
> on amounts too small (relatively) to justify the expense of setting up
> and accounting for the interest. The Bar Associations in 49 states require
> the interest go to approved "public interest" groups, and not to the
> owner of the money (the accounting shouldn't be difficult, assuming
> you don't do it manually :-).
>
> I suggest that any scheme, promoted by anyone (including the govt.), for
> the "public good" be looked at twice (at least) for a preponderance of the
> benefits going to just a few individuals.
>
> - David
>
> David Clem      $get@pccjes2.bitnet