--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure it is. Competition. If they can LOSE funding > (by not getting the > votes for example), then they are competing. If > there is a finite > amount of money to be divided up among various > recipients, and it is a > zero-sum game (i.e., one recipients gain is > another's loss), then those > recipients are competing for the money. It is a > slightly different sort > of competition than low-bid "auctioning" a contract, > but maybe not as > different as one might think (as Dan pointed out, > there is some amount > of politics in the awarding of some of those > contracts). Obviously, the > number on the bid is not the ONLY thing they > consider (there is quality, > reliability, honesty, nationality, to name a few) > > Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
Well, I guess it's competition of a sort. But the money to be divided up _isn't_ zero sum, because Congress always has the option to raise taxes or deficit spend. And it is inherently political - that is, NPR gets its money because it can command political support. It can use its small but vocal base of wealthy, politically active supporters to tax everyone in order to benefit _them_. There's no element of choice on the part of the people actually doing the paying (directly) for speech. So there's a bright line here. At most, money that goes to Halliburton (for example) is indirectly going to speech. But NPR money is direct. So it's coerced speech. That's something that you, of all people on the list, should be most opposed to. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
