Comment Re:You want "effective"? Eliminate the middleman!! (Score 1) 1010
The "buying votes" reference points back to your original post about "socialism" -- confiscatory redistribution of personal wealth (or "spreading the wealth around", as we've recently heard admitt...er, mentioned) is wholly unnecessary to fund the maintenance of infrastructure, pursuit of noble causes, and long-term/advanced (albeit apparently esoteric to the "uninformed masses") research, let alone to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
I'm well aware that some level of taxation is necessary and should even be considered a personal responsibility (though not necessarily "patriotic"; one of the most memorable incidents of our nation's founding days involved a revolt by bona-fide "patriots" against what they felt to be unfair and misrepresentative taxation), but if the overall tax burden on the "average citizen" (is there really any such person?) were in line with what is really necessary to fund the basic functions of government (rather than the extravagance of funding it's crept toward in the last century -- in direct contrast to the obvious intent of the founders) then those average citizens might have the financial wherewithall to voluntarily fund some of these "grand causes" that exceed the basics. It would then be incumbent upon the recipients of those "bonus" funds to explain why they're so necessary -- a "pain", more than likely, but if a researcher isn't able to inspire enough others to feel the same way he does about the mating habits of the Ugandan Bangabon Fly or whatever to voluntarily fund his research then why should those same people be coerced into funding it? Very easily enough people see the value in developing flu vaccines, cleaner-burning coal, stronger and longer-lasting bridges, and even (nowadays) a faster and more secure internet but why should these popularly important things be lumped-together with endeavors that can only successfully garner funding from a politician?!
Consider this: Name five people you personally know who you consider to be very bright. Now, are any of them politicians? Can you name any politicians who are brighter than those five people? Why should they not have an equal if not stronger voice in where their own tax dollars (remember: tax dollars are the people's, and NOT "the government's"!) are applied? Simply giving a bunch of politicians a huge pot of money and expecting them to spend only as much of it as is really necessary is just begging for extravagant and unnecessary spending (because the "hey, if we don't spend it all this year we might get our funding cut next year!!" mentality is always there waiting to rear its ugly head -- ever work on a department budget in a corporation? Not too many crumbs left on the table, let alone scraps falling on the floor, and each plate is usually left squeaky-clean.)
I'm well aware that some level of taxation is necessary and should even be considered a personal responsibility (though not necessarily "patriotic"; one of the most memorable incidents of our nation's founding days involved a revolt by bona-fide "patriots" against what they felt to be unfair and misrepresentative taxation), but if the overall tax burden on the "average citizen" (is there really any such person?) were in line with what is really necessary to fund the basic functions of government (rather than the extravagance of funding it's crept toward in the last century -- in direct contrast to the obvious intent of the founders) then those average citizens might have the financial wherewithall to voluntarily fund some of these "grand causes" that exceed the basics. It would then be incumbent upon the recipients of those "bonus" funds to explain why they're so necessary -- a "pain", more than likely, but if a researcher isn't able to inspire enough others to feel the same way he does about the mating habits of the Ugandan Bangabon Fly or whatever to voluntarily fund his research then why should those same people be coerced into funding it? Very easily enough people see the value in developing flu vaccines, cleaner-burning coal, stronger and longer-lasting bridges, and even (nowadays) a faster and more secure internet but why should these popularly important things be lumped-together with endeavors that can only successfully garner funding from a politician?!
Consider this: Name five people you personally know who you consider to be very bright. Now, are any of them politicians? Can you name any politicians who are brighter than those five people? Why should they not have an equal if not stronger voice in where their own tax dollars (remember: tax dollars are the people's, and NOT "the government's"!) are applied? Simply giving a bunch of politicians a huge pot of money and expecting them to spend only as much of it as is really necessary is just begging for extravagant and unnecessary spending (because the "hey, if we don't spend it all this year we might get our funding cut next year!!" mentality is always there waiting to rear its ugly head -- ever work on a department budget in a corporation? Not too many crumbs left on the table, let alone scraps falling on the floor, and each plate is usually left squeaky-clean.)
