It is hard to know when you are seriously espousing a position, vs. when you are using hyperbole to heighten contrast between positions.
Sorry about that.
You seem to be in the camp that thinks that any amount of government is too much government.
Nope. You’re not in the camp that thinks that any amount of government is not enough are you? You’re not of a camp that believes: That government is always right? That government should have power over the people instead of deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed, are you?
Based on that premise, I posted a few questions about how things would work if there was truly NO public sector at all.
That’s an erroneous premise so I will ignore the rest of your post since it’s based upon that erroneous premise. But I will tell you this so that you can understand whence I come.
I am in support of the Constitution. That is how much government I believe to be right. Simple. Find me the justification for the Department of Education (as one example) in the Constitution. The Constitution is where I start and finish. Is it perfect? No. When we come across an imperfection we need remediation, but, first, the Constitution lest we be governed by men not laws, by personalities, by powerful individuals and groups, not laws.
One last thing, you wrote:
We have discussed school funding in Other Forum Entries in past years. We fundamentally disagree about this one, I think. I strongly support the public school option, while you seem to be saying that the best solution is a private only solution.
You provided this link:http://www.greendaleoriginals.com/bboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=323
Was there some unfinished business there that I can help with?
Also we can dispatch this:
Come on now, let's get specific. What taxes would you eliminate? (besides all *your* taxes
) What specific programs?
Well, I think you'll understand that anything that is unConstitutional I would be rid of were I to make such a choice.
And I'll be glad to address this before I close.
Do you think that Scott Walker is doing a good job of stewardship of the county's assets in his program of Lower Taxes Regardless, selling off park land and terminating services? Our park services and maintenance budgets have been starved long enough that the parks grounds and buildings are falling into disrepair. The cost to return these buidlings and grounds to their previous state is higher than if we had maintained them properly all along. Every homeowner understands this: He sees it in his own home. Regular painting, perioidic re-roofing, gutter cleaning and repair in spring and fall, all are lower cost investments when compared to the cost of replacing rotten eves, or repairing water-damaged walls and furnishings when roof or windows fail because they have not been maintained.
I do not know that this premise is, in this particular instance, true:
The cost to return these buidlings and grounds to their previous state is higher than if we had maintained them properly all along. Every homeowner understands this: He sees it in his own home.
Interestingly, this is an argument that was made by many in the Village of Greendale regarding the failure of regular maintenance of the High School buidling, resulting in the “need” for massive remodeling/fixing i.e. sticking the taxpayer for more money than should have been required had ordinary maintenance procedures not been neglected. I don’t know if it’s accurate, just that it parallels your observations regarding CE Walker’s stewardship regarding park buidlings and grounds. That argument was rejected as not pertinent, if memory serves, by just about everybody in government. But, that aside, your contention is one that I don't really find worth dealing with for the following reason.
I do not find that “Parks” is something that is properly the purview of government. Now that’s merely a matter of opinion, not the sort of thing I would argue about on Constitutional grounds, other than what is demanded to be inferred from the insistence of government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed, but, still, if you want to go to the park it would be better if YOU paid for it YOURSELF. Really, now, how many people who pay property taxes in Milwaukee County do you suppose USE the park(s); is it more than- or less than- the number of property taxpaying residents who pay for the park(s)? I suggest many fewer use than pay. Is that really fair? I drive through Whitnall Park. The last several times I used the Park System I paid for it. That would be at the Boerner Botanical Gardens. Is there still a fee there? I don’t golf, but I think one has to pay to golf in the parks, don’t they? Is that really fair? Well there was a time that I went to Wehr to ask about this beautiful spider I had found in my yard. I didn’t get any useful answer, though. I did find out, on the ‘net that it is commonly referred to as a Cross Spider and they are pretty common. It was a good-sized spider, just beautiful in its markings.
Hey, I just came across this: http://www.nrpa.org/Content.aspx?id=650
. Seems as though CE Walker’s stewardship must be pretty good, wouldn’t you say? Not that I care all that much as I don’t believe that PARKS is, as I said, something that government should really be handling. There are many private parks all across this great land and, while they can’t, maybe, compare to the parks in Milwaukee County under the Stewardship of Scott Walker, they’re pretty good, or at least they’re as good as they need to be considering that you can’t use them unless you pay an entrance fee. And why stop at Parks? Why not Milwaukee County Bowling Lanes, free of charge? I don’t bowl much but have been thinking of taking it up again. But, if I do, I’ll pay when I bowl and won’t ask anybody to pay for me.
And, by the way, having taken the time to read your whole post, I wonder if you read mine. This little bit you wrote makes me think that maybe you didn’t because I did deal with this query of yours in my previous.
And you still haven’t finished with Mr. WIllie Horton I think.