Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
There are certain products individuals can't buy and certain products that are not for individual consumption. Certain people can't buy food so the government steps in and buys it for them. Defense is something that individuals can't buy individually so the government has to step in a buy it for the collective. But when a person can buy a product, and it is for individual consumption, then the choice should be left up to the person whether or not to buy the product. If they have a choice and it only affects them why should the government step in. All consumer products, including media, is included in this catagory. Can you not see that?
|
Yes and no. I prefer limiting government's role where it is not necessary, but there are social goods we have determined will be government funded that do not need to be. Education, healthcare for the indigent, public works projects ranging from subways and roads to urban renewal - all have become collective efforts. Saving Chrysler was a collective effort, too.
However, I worry that there is much to fear from government involvement, and particularly so in the media, and I also believe the media is different because of the first amendment. Media is a place where it is particularly dangerous for government to go.
I personally think government involvement in education shares some of the dangers, and that it is essential to have a separate private school system as an alternative and to develop new ideas.
