RoR: Forum

While the governement has no business giving away my stolen money to fund television projects it deems worthwhile, I think there are many more pressing and less useful government expenditures that use more of our tax dollars and give us nothing in return, that ought o be cut also or instead. Hey, man, I learned alot as a kids from that 'government sponsored' channel. So, if they are going to keep the pork barrel projects but eliminate PBS, where is my tax refund? Oh, they're going to KEEP the money and spend it on OTHER pork barrel projects? Swell.

Post 1

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 1:51pm

Scott,

Good point and it reminds me of the question never asked when a government agency like the SEC or EPA extracts a fine for misbehavior by some company : Where does that money go?

Post 2

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 7:33pm

In their own pockets - where else do you really think?

Post 3

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 9:10am

Try to keep up. This funding cut has already been restored.

As to PBS--just what we need--government owned TV providing lesson plans to the nation's teachers.

Does this fall under the Ministry of Propaganda or is it some other agency?

Post 4

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 9:32am

"As to PBS--just what we need--government owned TV providing lesson plans to the nation's teachers."

Yes, the government CAN do some incidental good, occasionally.

Compare the educational content (for children) of ANYTHING on private television to Sesame Street and The Electric Company.

I rest my case.

Post 5

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 11:48am

I think NPR has proven itself pretty valuable, diverse, and objective. They've come a long way over the years. There news reports are for the most part straight news reports, delivered in a timely fashion. They are largely supported via pledges.

The interesting thing is the flood of emails that came in protest to the cuts, I think it was over a million of them.

I haven't seen any private radio that has been able to serve up the kind of eclectic, meaningful contact that NPR has. I think they are a bargain compared to the billions that are getting pissed away.

I remember when they went after the National Endowment for the Arts, I thought that was dopey, too. The same politicians that were going after that were doing a lot goofier things with our money than putting it into culture. Sure, the NDA had some silly crap leak into it, but generally it was first class.

Post 6

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 11:51am

Yes, the government CAN do some incidental good, occasionally.

But it does more harm than good, so we must limit its power to what's necessary to protect individual rights.

Compare the educational content (for children) of ANYTHING on private television to Sesame Street and The Electric Company.

There are other kids networks on cable like Discovery TV that have better educational content for older kids. Also, the truly quality programming on public TV would be picked up by private companies once they cut off public TV. There weren't as many media choices in the early days, but now there are, and whatever incidental good public TV once might have done, it's no longer necessary, and to some extent is now holding back private educational TV competition.

(Edited by Scott Schiff on 6/27, 11:52am)

Post 7

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 12:01pm

I remember when they went after the National Endowment for the Arts, I thought that was dopey, too.

Yes the government needs to pick winners and losers in the Arts. How else would be know what is good?

Post 8

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 12:08pm

Yes, the government CAN do some incidental good, occasionally.

Compare the educational content (for children) of ANYTHING on private television to Sesame Street and The Electric Company.

I rest my case.

How occasional would that be?

As to comparing-bothering with a list would just invite endless quibbling and denying. Your mind is made up.

The State rests its case. LOL

Post 9

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 1:42pm

Does anyone on this site have ANY idea how tiring it is to listen to Randroids cite chapter and verse of the Holy Text (OPAR) whenever these issues come up?

"Government bad...private industry good."

Sure, it misses the entire point, but then you get to be 'correct,' what a RUSH!

Okay, since this is evidently The Children's Hour at SOLO, I'll start at the beginning, so none of you can accuse me of being a statist, nihilist, Liberal, blah blah blah.

1. The government has no business funding any television channels, such not being a proper role of government.

2. All government taxation is theft.

3. All government involvement in anything other than the Court system, national defense, and a few other very narrowly defined areas, is wrong, immoral, incorrect, misguided, inefficient, blah, blah.

4. SOME immoral use of our stolen money is even worse than others. When the citizenry at large derives SOME benefit from stolen tax dollars at work, it is better than tax dollars used by politicians to bribe one another, for example.

As for hypotheticals about how a free market will replace everything with something better, and solve all the world's ills, and for statements that nothing good can come out of a government program, blah blah--well, it is so much horseshit. If there was SUCH a HOT market for educational children's shows, WHERE are all the competitors? If Sesame Street and The Electric Company were such monstrous government abortions, how did any kids learn their friggin' ABC's? Why wasn't there a clamor for higher quality kids educational TV sufficient to support a for-pay network, or commerial-supported network?

Barney was private industry, wasn't he? Not only did that show NOT teach kids a damn thing, other than they want a Barney toy, but he also filled their little minds up with collectivist drivel and feel-good progaganda.

Private industry has also come up with such educational gems as Pokemon and Power Rangers.

No, it wasn't my choice to have the government pick my pocket to run an educational show. I just balk at it less than the legions of other stupid, absolutely return-free mis-use of tax money in this country. Is this concept really so difficult to understand?

Post 10

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 2:18pm

Scott, if you were an elected legislator would you actively campaign against the funding, simply state your opposition, or just vote against it when the time came? What would be the proper Libertarian/Objectivist thing to do?

Politics is such a messy business.

Post 11

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 3:30pm

I do not know what I'd do, because I'd need more facts.

Generally, I would target blatant corruption and utter waste of money first. That means I'd either be assassinated or my family would be threatened until I capitulated.

You vote against it, whether you speak up or not, if you are a Libertarian or Objectivist.

Post 12

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 3:37pm

Yes, PBS is THE most favorite TV station for me. My son use to enjoy its children's programs (now he's grown out of it), and I enjoy Nature, Nova, Frontline, and Masterpiece Theater.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 6/27, 4:04pm)

Post 13

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 4:06pm

SOME immoral use of our stolen money is even worse than others. When the citizenry at large derives SOME benefit from stolen tax dollars at work, it is better than tax dollars used by politicians to bribe one another, for example.

No, it wasn't my choice to have the government pick my pocket to run an educational show. I just balk at it less than the legions of other stupid, absolutely return-free mis-use of tax money in this country. Is this concept really so difficult to understand

No it is not difficult to understand. You prefer working in the house to working in the fields, and are fond of saying, �if slavery is inevitable relax and enjoy it�.

Post 14

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 4:24pm

Slavery? OK, let's make the slavery analogy apt. We are slaves guarded by over a million armed guards. Almost anyplace else in the world the underground railroad might end means even worse slavery. Chances of true escape are essentially nil. So given all that... yes, working in the kitchen is less bad than working in the field.

Scott-

I'm about as anti-government as you can get and most days still lean anarchist, but agree with your points and your being able to recognize 'shades of evil'. Oppose public broadcasting - sure, but there are far bigger concerns.

One surprising thing you noted though was about having no private alternatives. I'm not big on watching kids' shows, but am surprised if there aren't real educational offerings for youth somewhere among Discovery/History/TLC/A&E.

Post 15

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 5:06pm

but agree with your points and your being able to recognize 'shades of evil'.

"Before anyone can identify anything as "gray," one has to know what is black and what is white. In the field of morality, this means that one must first identify what is good and what is evil. And when a man has ascertained that one alternative is good and the other is evil, he has no justification for choosing a mixture. There can be no justification for choosing any part of that which one knows to be evil. " |AR

Post 16

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 5:17pm

Okay, Robert, now that you have called me a house nigger, let's examine your black and white existence, okay?

Do you carry a driver's license? Have you ever paid taxes? Ever benefitted from a government program, like roads? Public university? Ever obeyed a speed limit? Paid a traffic ticket? Parking ticket? Obeyed a cop? Used a public library? Attended a public concert or museum?

If the answer to any of the above is yes, by your own definition, you are a hypocrite. How can you live with yourself? Why haven't you founded Galt's Gulch yet? It's all black and white, right? Or are you writing your entries here from a Federal Pen?

Seriously, do you not get this?

Post 17

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 6:54pm

�unless one is prepared to dispense with morality altogether and to regard a petty chiseller and a murderer as morally equal, one still has to judge and evaluate the many shadings of �gray� that one may encounter in the characters of individual men.� AR

Seemed appropriate.

---Landon

Post 18

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 7:11pm

Landon, it is appropriate. I forget the reference for this quote. Can you tell me where she said that?

Post 19

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 7:30pm