I have come to the conclusion that you can't use tax money to fund ideas that are not universally accepted. Planed Parenthood is probably a perfect example. If you don't believe that abortion is right than you are probably pretty pissed when YOUR hard earned cash goes to support this program and you should be. Another example is the school tax. If you have no children, should you be force to essentially educate other people children. I would argue that you shouldn't. Perhaps, this biggest load of crap is ObamaCare. The question is: Why should I pay for unhealthy people's healthcare as a healthy individual? For that matter, why should I have to pay for healthcare at all if I don't want to. The answer is, I shouldn't. The problem with these cases is that decisions to fund these programs are bases on altruistic moral values. Values I might add that were established by someone other than me. When you start to stuff moral values down someones throat, naturally they will pissed.
Now, after reading this someone might and probably would say that not funding Planned Parenthood is an attack on women's health. No it is not. If you really feel that way then start a non-profit organization to raise money for the program or cut a big fat check yourself. One of four things will happen. You don't cut the check or start a program and by definition you are just a plain hypocrite. You cut the check to support you beliefs. You start the program and it is success. Good for you. The program is flop indicating that it was run badly or people don't actually support the program. People's wallets don't lie. The bottom line is that you can't force people to support your morals without resistance and quite frankly it's unconstitutional in my opinion.
Oh but the children. What a bunch of crap. You could double funding to schools across the board and I guarantee you will not see a similar improvement is student performance. All schools should be privatized. But, that will benefit the rich . Most rich children probably already go to a private school. And let us face the fact. The quality of schools is directly proportional to the socio-economical demographic of the area. Privatizing schools might in fact reduce this inequality. Through competition the price of school should go down effectively shrinking the barrier to entry making it much more possible for quality school to open in urban areas. And if that is still not enough, I will swing back around and say start a non-profit organization to address the issue. The reality of is, if you can't raise enough money then people don't care and you can't and should't force them to.
To contrast my examples above. I feel pretty confident that 99.9% of the people in this country think that murder is bad. You could argue that this is also a moral belief, but I personally think is pretty biological. It would go against the fundamental purpose of our species, to propagate. Either way, you will not have any resistance providing mechanizes to punish people for murder. This protects your fundamental right to live and I not sure even sure that is right as much as survival tactic among our species.
I conclude that moral values especially altruistic ones do not have a place in government at least at the federal level. Or at the very least they should not dictate public policy. Individual states should have right to make their own decision about just things.
I think there are some strong parallels to public policy and the old proverb "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for life". Where is all the teaching? Why does the government have a monopoly on fish?
No comments:
Post a Comment