[TKDietz]

I don't share rogerv's love for or trust in government either, or his irrational belief that government can or should even try to fix all of our problems. But do you really think that roads should be left only up to private citizens? That sounds a little crazy to me. Highways cost millions per mile to build. Even local roads, bridges, and so on, are incredibly expensive. There are a lot of programs I'd rather not see my tax money going to but decent roads just seem fundamentally important to our success as a country, and they're something that requires a collective effort to build and maintain. To me, roads seem squarely in the category of things that it makes sense for government to handle.

[rogerv]

I am trying to be careful in distinguishing problems government can and should solve from those it cannot or should not. We may disagree on what goes in which pile, but we are agreed there are problems government cannot or should not solve.

I am also sympathetic with the reminder that government is we the people. The whole matter is complicated by the fact that we delegate some of the decision making to elected representatives. I'm not out to make this easier than it is is. And I am in favor of much more public debate and active participation in the decision making process at all levels than we currently have. But we have to start somewhere. We have to start with the government we have, not the one we'd like to have. I'd like government to do a better job of listening to us than it does, and yes, I apply that across the board, to democrats as well as republicans, and at all levels of government. I'm not saying we should govern by polls, but if government is going to represent our interests, they should listen to what those are.

[TChris]

But do you really think that roads should be left only up to private citizens?

No, I don't. This particular line is all a hypothetical argument.

I am trying to further this debate by pointing out that the only things the government can do in a Republic are those things the citizens themselves have the authority to do, and could do, but are more efficiently done on their behalf by elected representatives. Rogerv seems to believe the idea that the government is somehow inherently wiser and more moral than the people, hence his encouragement for expansion of governmental authority.

The Open Society web pages appear to have been written by Rogerv. That, or perhaps all the members of this organization favor long-winded diatribes that wander aimlessly through gentle, windswept meadows of politically correct fluff while rarely arriving at any distiguishable landmarks of policy recommendation. The only policy recommendation I have been able to discern on their website is that they seem to think criminals shouldn't be punished for their crimes.

The bulk of their site is filled with such meaningful gems as this:

OSI and the network implement a range of initiatives that aim to promote open societies by shaping government policy and supporting education, media, public health, and human and women's rights, as well as social, legal, and economic reform.

When that much BS is stacked in one place, it is wise to don the rubber boots.