On 1/13/14, 2:07 PM, glen wrote:
The general argument turns out to be one of inappropriate or
mismatched scales. For example, the county has various things going on
in various parts of the county (e.g. light rail coming to the North
Eastern most corner of the county, urban renewal in unincorporated
areas surrounding various cities, etc.). The county, as a cooperating
governing body has to weigh in on these things and levy (or not) taxes
to help cover its negotiated participation. But the taxes paid by
someone way off in some distant place within the county are not lower,
despite the expectation they'll never use the services they're paying for.
The choice of scale is a trade off, between collecting enough money to
do interesting things with, and having geographically localized,
well-tailored control. It doesn't bother me that New Mexico has a
debt obligation to Rail Runner, one that I'll be paying too. It is of
little interest to me if Rail Runner ever becomes profitable. I've only
used Rail Runner a handful of times. I like the idea of that public
investment, because I know other people that do need that transportation
service will have it, and that their participation in the economy, which
it facilitates, will in the end help me as a resident of New Mexico.
It means that the state is trying to raise the bar for everyone, and
that by itself is admirable enough to pay for. Period.
I'm also not a big fan of defining communities only in terms of
geographic constraints. For example, where I grew up, I was forced to
go to the local high schools, which were mostly useless other than to
instill in me an overwhelming loathing of rednecks and a general sense
of hopelessness in the future. Had there been larger districts that
let me move around, I would have liked that.
A similar example would be funding for foreign wars like troops in
Afghanistan or drone attacks in Pakistan ... or collecting money from
me so the NSA can spy on me. So, while I think I grok your argument
for government run services as opposed to more organic organizations,
it's not an unassailable position and, indeed, is fundamentally flawed
in some contexts.
At the federal level I also accept that the intelligence agencies will
make decisions that I won't be involved-in, and that I have to trust
these people to be public servants and servants of the U.S. Constitution
and to use their best professional judgements on things. I don't even
know what it means to do intelligence operations organically? More like
Blackwater? Or just no military and intelligence at all?
If elected officials at any level grossly violate my expectations, I'll
vote against them and encourage others to do the same.
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
