Originally Posted by DIYDeath
Originally Posted by hurleyef
You are correct, but only half. Much of what taxes are spent on are definitely "what the people want," and much are not. It cuts both ways and then gets really murky when you get into media manipulation of public opinion. But people who rail against taxes on principal are idiots. The argument that our democracy has been co-opted by monied interests is a compelling one, and very disconcerting. But the issue isn't one of taxation, but representation. Framing it otherwise only serves to undermine public interests by deflecting the issue.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that in this particular case special interests are fighting against the rights of the people to determine public policy for themselves. Ie: the issue is one of barring representation, not improper spending of government funds. I mean, the state is suing the federal authority for the right to prevent its own citizenry from choosing a particular policy option for itself? It really does seem cut and dried to me.
I completely agree with you, in essence this issue is one of a state trying to remain a democracy while the federal government tries to convert said state into an oligarcy.
So, let me see if I understand you. You are saying that the democratically elected state governments forcing democratically elected local governments not to spend their local tax dollars to setup a municipal internet is democracy while the democratically elected federal government forcing the state government to let the local government do what it wants is an oligarchy abusing its power?
I think you missed the point.
State government is one of the best governments to buy, it is pretty cheap for the power they have. There are really a lot of local governments so it is a pain to figure out who to pay
fund in all of them and buying
influencing the federal government is much more expensive.
I am strongly in favor of keeping power and money as local as possible, let local government keep more of the tax money and the control over how to spend it. State governments are at least as in the pockets of big business and special interest groups as the federal government is.
This case just seems like a state government (apparently owned by big ISPs) being told the ISPs plans to protect their monopolies are infringing on local governments' rights. Why should the State be able to tell a City they cannot setup municipal internet? What does that have to do with them? If the people in the city didn't want it the people living in the city wouldn't have voted for it.