Economics: I am stunned by the number of people that have argued against Mark V. Anderson. It is obvious to all of us that our government spends a lot of money that could go to better uses. The question becomes defining better uses. It is likely we could have a heated debate about the need for corporate welfare, welfare for professional athletes/owners, individual welfare, Health and Human services, etc, etc. Our government has MANY programs that are optional and can be met via donations or the market. Mr. Anderson did not say ALL programs fit this argument -- it is the responses that have oversimplified the argument.
Most of us would agree that our government is the only place that can (sensibly) deliver basic services. Transportation, law enforcement, fire, defense, etc. I agree with Mr. Anderson's conclusion on the topic: "People from every political spectrum should want to minimize government spending because it simply isn't as effective at achieving our aims as money directed right at the place it's needed." Bill Cullen. Whittier Landlord REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
