On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:29:35AM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > 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.
Let's not be silly, now. That is a 4th order effect, at best. Can you imagine the debate over the budget when the come to the miniscule public radio line (which I guess is buried inside some other category): "We need to give more money to NPR!" "But if you do, then we have to take it from the widows and orphans!" "No we don't, let's just raise taxes by 0.0001% so we can give NPR a little more!" > 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. Sure it is political to some extent. As is the awarding of contracts, which Dan and I have suggested. And I don't have any element of choice in my tax dollars going to a particular contractor or not. Oh no, I am being coerced! > At most, money that goes to Halliburton (for example) is indirectly > going to speech. But NPR money is direct. So it's coerced This direct/indirect thing isn't nearly as clear as you make it out to be. At most, money that goes to NPR is indirectly going to speech. The amount, as Dan quoted, is quite small, certainly not enough for a controlling interest. And even if it is larger than Dan quoted, what evidence do you have that the government is coercing the speech on NPR? > That's something that you, of all people on the list, should be most > opposed to. I was expecting you to make a silly comment like this sooner or later. I guess you are more predictable than I am, huh? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
