Thanks for the link. If anyone can find it there's a wonderful though sadly out of print book entitled "The Federal Subsidy Beast" by Brian J. Finegan that describes the feedback loop between industries and government that ends up sidelining the citizenry.
An interesting perspective but completely inaccurate. Two good examples are:
1. Sugar costs twice as much in the US as most of the rest of the world. This is due to import tariffs designed to protect US sugar farmers. While this is not a subsidy in the classical sense it does mean that we spend more on sugar than we ought.
2. The US pays farmers to grow corn for ethanol production. Inefficient and a legitimate subsidy which significantly alters the cost of corn to the end consumer in the upward direction through a. higher cost at the grocery store and b. higher taxation.
The work was all/will all be done by corporate entities through contracts assigned. The GAO issued a report indicating that they have an unfunded gap in providing for evaluation of monies spent. see: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-371T.
The very idea of providing services to rural areas (c.f. roads, electricity, gas/electric, mail) has nothing whatever to do with efficiency. If efficiency were a goal the government would have to mandate that all of you live in the city. This type of redistribution of wealth from urban to rural areas is what allows myopic ideas about taxation to thrive in the very areas that benefit the most: rural areas. If you want to hate the government for wasting your tax dollars then you should also want to communicate your distaste to your elected representatives. The problem is that said elected representatives aren't elected by you, but rather by the interest groups (see the private contractors being hired) who can afford to lobby for riders on legislation.
I know the sentence was intended to be facetious but:
"Then realise that almost all sexual abuse occurs within families or by other people in trusted caring roles - if you want to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, you would stop far more child sexual abuse by outlawing the family unit."
And mandate what in its place? Surely the family unit is responsible for many degrees of socialisation and sociopathy but I wouldn't begin to know the right search terms for alternatives to the family unit. And the implication is that it is family in its permutations that sets up the position of abuse of power, not our native hardwiring (I'm not trying to be an apologist). I'm writing because I'm genuinely curious about your response to this; you seem to have a number of cogent arguments.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the link. If anyone can find it there's a wonderful though sadly out of print book entitled "The Federal Subsidy Beast" by Brian J. Finegan that describes the feedback loop between industries and government that ends up sidelining the citizenry.
An interesting perspective but completely inaccurate. Two good examples are: 1. Sugar costs twice as much in the US as most of the rest of the world. This is due to import tariffs designed to protect US sugar farmers. While this is not a subsidy in the classical sense it does mean that we spend more on sugar than we ought. 2. The US pays farmers to grow corn for ethanol production. Inefficient and a legitimate subsidy which significantly alters the cost of corn to the end consumer in the upward direction through a. higher cost at the grocery store and b. higher taxation.
The work was all/will all be done by corporate entities through contracts assigned. The GAO issued a report indicating that they have an unfunded gap in providing for evaluation of monies spent. see: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-371T. The very idea of providing services to rural areas (c.f. roads, electricity, gas/electric, mail) has nothing whatever to do with efficiency. If efficiency were a goal the government would have to mandate that all of you live in the city. This type of redistribution of wealth from urban to rural areas is what allows myopic ideas about taxation to thrive in the very areas that benefit the most: rural areas. If you want to hate the government for wasting your tax dollars then you should also want to communicate your distaste to your elected representatives. The problem is that said elected representatives aren't elected by you, but rather by the interest groups (see the private contractors being hired) who can afford to lobby for riders on legislation.
I know the sentence was intended to be facetious but: "Then realise that almost all sexual abuse occurs within families or by other people in trusted caring roles - if you want to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, you would stop far more child sexual abuse by outlawing the family unit." And mandate what in its place? Surely the family unit is responsible for many degrees of socialisation and sociopathy but I wouldn't begin to know the right search terms for alternatives to the family unit. And the implication is that it is family in its permutations that sets up the position of abuse of power, not our native hardwiring (I'm not trying to be an apologist). I'm writing because I'm genuinely curious about your response to this; you seem to have a number of cogent arguments.