Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Sorry do you mean you would appreciate a response or you have done so?
Not sure how to begin. Yes I guess so David, small government, or smaller at least and much less expensive and wasteful. Burke maybe, but I have also been reading Russel Kirk and Friedman looking for perspective on current circumstances. To Lewis, I have never been opposed to, nor are many of the thinkers who influence conservative thought, what little remains of it, support through taxes of basic essential services. It is at least convenient, and efficient to do it through taxes. Protection of rights and the easing of human misery is not only a proper function of government, it's moral. What people have a right to is a matter of debate and tradition. Again, my issue is mostly with the extent, and efficacy of he state to do this well. Sometimes it is important to fight the battles that need fighting, whether winnable or not, and if that is what motivates one's support for public assistance and social welfare programs that shows a lot of heart. Not sure we will ever agree on its effectiveness. So much is siphoned off the top and despite the absolute fortune spent on the war on drugs or poverty, the problems only worsen. Well, some efforts are being made to reduce the war on marijuana at least.
On other forums lately, fear has led to calls for enforced rationing, and for the state to engage in more delberate...central planning. We all know how that will turn out.
"...What people have a right to is a matter of debate and tradition..." We can be more specific than that. Sometimes, though, I've seen people disagree deliberately, or throw a spanner into the works, simply to blow-up whatever progress is made toward consensus. Logic is no help when people refuse to see the obvious: "That's a lake full of water." "...No it's not. It's just a bunch of H2O. Hydrogen and Oxygen in a liquid state."
Comments
Not sure how to begin. Yes I guess so David, small government, or smaller at least and much less expensive and wasteful. Burke maybe, but I have also been reading Russel Kirk and Friedman looking for perspective on current circumstances.
To Lewis, I have never been opposed to, nor are many of the thinkers who influence conservative thought, what little remains of it, support through taxes of basic essential services. It is at least convenient, and efficient to do it through taxes. Protection of rights and the easing of human misery is not only a proper function of government, it's moral. What people have a right to is a matter of debate and tradition. Again, my issue is mostly with the extent, and efficacy of he state to do this well. Sometimes it is important to fight the battles that need fighting, whether winnable or not, and if that is what motivates one's support for public assistance and social welfare programs that shows a lot of heart. Not sure we will ever agree on its effectiveness. So much is siphoned off the top and despite the absolute fortune spent on the war on drugs or poverty, the problems only worsen. Well, some efforts are being made to reduce the war on marijuana at least.
On other forums lately, fear has led to calls for enforced rationing, and for the state to engage in more delberate...central planning. We all know how that will turn out.
Seems others are questioning the trade-offs too.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-economic-toll-mounts-nation-ponders-the-trade-offs-11584970165?fbclid=IwAR0vc0RFA_royPwdWOMcFu53jjaoHPzyAi45yOl7EPuu0ST1sR2KIAvf5Zs
"...No it's not. It's just a bunch of H2O. Hydrogen and Oxygen in a liquid state."
...To which I reply: "eschew obfuscation."
Der
neither, sorry;
put a 'your' in front of my clause