I disagree. And I don't concider it to be nit picking. As far as I'm concerned the words we use to describe things are important.
When taxes become "contributions" and government spending becomes "investment" we are losing the battle. The minds of the young are the battle ground. They become used to hearing these things and it changes their perspective.
So no, I don't agree that we own these things or that we own the government. We don't. We elect some from among our number to represent us. We don't own them or what they do, or what they aquire with the money they take from us.
One of the ways you can tell if you really own something is if you are able to dispose of it at your will. Since I can't sell my part of the bridge, it isn't mine. It's not nitpicking, it's an attempt to prevent the further slide of the people into believing what isn't.
Walter E Williams explains this very well to his students, and we can all learn from it.
I disagree. And I don't concider it to be nit picking. As far as I'm concerned the words we use to describe things are important.
Of course words are important. The words of the Preamble are important as they describe why 'we' established this government. Thus, to claim 'we' don't 'own it' is simply nitpicking wordplay.
When taxes become "contributions" and government spending becomes "investment" we are losing the battle. The minds of the young are the battle ground. They become used to hearing these things and it changes their perspective.
Like OWK you are preaching to a convert.. Why? Whats your real problem?
So no, I don't agree that we own these things or that we own the government. We don't.
'So', whatever. Believe as you like. 'Believe' you made your point.
We elect some from among our number to represent us. We don't own them or what they do, or what they aquire with the money they take from us.
??? Who said we 'owned' our representitives? We certainly own any property they aquire in our name, while in our employ however.
One of the ways you can tell if you really own something is if you are able to dispose of it at your will. Since I can't sell my part of the bridge, it isn't mine.
Absurd concept. The Golden Gate bridge is public property, thus partly 'yours'.
This discussion getting bizarro. Do you really think our political life would be somehow better if an individual owned that bridge? Why?
It's not nitpicking, it's an attempt to prevent the further slide of the people into believing what isn't. Walter E Williams explains this very well to his students, and we can all learn from it.
I've read and agreed with a lot, if not all of Williams works, and have never seen where he advocates that ~ALL~ public infrastructure should or even could be privatized.
-- Granted, far more could, & should.. -- And, - that would be possible under existing constitutional law. <
It is not possible under current political realities however, and that reality will never be changed by men ranting to sell the Golden Gate Bridge..