“Liberals” and “Conservatives”
November 14th, 2007David Damore is a young poly sci professor at UNLV who has never not had a government teat. He recently picked up a side gig writing for the new political blog politickernv.com.
This week, he penned an opinion piece exhorting Nevadans on to raise taxes to fund more teats.
(Nevada) is now experiencing the ugly side of the iron law of growth: in the long term, growth never pays for itself, particularly growth of the sprawling type that has been the states’ specialty.
Instead, unchecked growth, by concentrating more and more people in a limited space, invariably creates the need for more roads, schools, parks, hospitals, fire and police protection, and the like. And of course all of these demands necessitate a larger and more activist government regardless of any libertarian tradition that is so deeply ingrained in a state’s mythology.
To me, this distills the essense of the so-called “liberal” and “conservative” debate.
- “Growth never pays for growth” is a recurring complaint of those who want to expand government, but they never offer any examples. It’s a cute phrase, repetitive, alliterate, absolute, but defining it is illusive. Does it mean that an existing tax structure fails to provide enough money to fund a consistent level of government service over time? Because, generally, it does. Without any further examples from the liberals who say it, I am left with a translation that larger societies demand more government services than smaller ones, therefore taxes must be raised to provide those new government services. This would be an honest debate if I could ever get folks like Damore to have it.
- Damore says a larger society “creates the need for more roads, schools, parks, hospitals, fire and police protection, and the like.” I prefer my medicine not socialized, thank you, so I would take hospitals off that list. Washoe County’s hospital finally thrived after it was privatized (turned into a private, non-profit) twenty years ago, and has prospered while Clark County’s government hospital has been wracked by corruption, political cronyism and gaping taxpayer losses. However, the larger point that Damore tries to fly here - that more people paying taxes can’t pay for more roads, schools, parks, cops and firemen - flies in the face of logic, and, until proved, is untrue. Where does he suggest all the new tax dollars those new residents are generating be spent instead?
- Damore concludes “All of these demands necessitate a larger and more activist government” - it seems reasonable that these demands create a larger government, sure. That’s why Nevada’s state government has grown every single year, even without tax hikes, for the past fifty. But more activist? I sure hope not.
Government is an inherently dangerous animal, as our founding fathers correctly noted from studying governments through history. They are frequently corrupt, always wasteful, and likely the least efficient way to get anything done. Certainly there are things our society needs that only collective effort (government) can provide. But the duty of all citizens is to try to improve the efficiency of government’s work, and always be vigilant against expansions of government into areas that are dangerous, or inappropriate, for it.
November 17th, 2007 at 7:58 am
The battle rages on between the “liberal” and “conservative” virtual political “sides”. It is clear that both sides favor larger government as a means of expanding the power base of those who wish to live in dachas. Controlling the proletariat by making them think they are being saved by the ruling party is a socialistic ideal designed by Marx, implemented by Lenin and perfected by Stalin. The basic fact is that the more your Government spends, the more it controls your life. The more you are controlled, the more you are a slave. It is hard work to manage a democracy. As we are seeing, if we do not do the work necessary, we simply revert to a slave state.
Thomas Jefferson anticipated this situation, but judged that citizens, once given the hammer over oppressive government, would never release this control though apathy. I guess he was judging this from a perspective of a Nation that just won a hard, costly battle to attain the precious freedom they craved. Although we still have the Constitutional right to control our Government, we are simply too lazy to use it. Just ask anyone who votes and they will tell you that they voted for the “lesser of two evils”. Our central Government today is far more oppressive than that of King George was to the colonies, yet we continue to openly send “evils” to run our Government. The end is self-evident.
David is certainly a hard-core socialist (from his picture, he looks very young which typifies many such idealists). He wants to wish everyone into compliance with his ideals. This is totally in contravention with the letter and intent of our Constitution, yet it seems that, much to the chagrin of Thomas Jefferson, we continue to accept the collar being tightened into a noose. It is OK in this country for David to think and write as he wants. It is even OK for the rest of us to throw our freedom away for convenience. What is not OK is the taxing of our future generations through this malfeasance. It is important to realize that both parties seek the same goal (total Governmetn control), but each creates artifical conflicts between them to “rally the electorate”. “Liberals” want to tax the “rich” (the very entrepeneurs who launched the United States to a world power)…..”Conservatives” want to tax the future generations. Both are simply amoral and wrong.
Our founding fathers gave us a gift, as Franklin said “if you can keep it”. I would hate to think that we are too lazy to keep it, but it is difficult to see any other conclusion.
November 17th, 2007 at 8:13 am
THIS PROVES MY POINT. WE SHOULD NOT HAVE IDIOTS LIKE DAVID
DAMORE TEACHING IN OUR SCHOOLS. GET RID OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS!
November 17th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
One family in my neighborhood has THIRTEEN kids. When the cost of educating these cretins is factored out across the neighborhood for K-12, maybe growth doesn’t pay for growth.
I feel bad to the seniors in our neighborhood who have already paid to send their 2 kids to school only to have some of these 13 vandalizing their yards and homes with the added insult and cost of having to fund the eduwaste machine to over $1 million for this one family.
Just tired and angry. I know it sounds mean, but where does it end?
December 22nd, 2007 at 7:35 am
The more people that move into the State the more people there are to pay taxes. In that way growth always pays for itself. Of course, there is a lag time between when necessary expansion of roads and other infrastrucute items are completed and when they are finally paid for but that is the case with any type of business. Money can easily be borrowed and the cost will be easily paid off in time. In response to Doug’s response I would say let us not be bitter. Children are the future and the cost of educating them should not be resented. The question is how are we going to educate them? Are we going to do it with a wasteful government socialized system or will we have the courage to break up the current monopoly and privatize it? Once it is privatized we will no longer have the powerful teachers union constantly lobbying for excessive & ridiculous tax increases. Private education will also teach children morals which the ACLU has effectively removed from the curriculum because moral education could imply moral absolutes and the existence of a God.