Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Why Do So Few Understand Structural Arguments?

Why is it so hard for someone to see that a library funded via the government is at risk of losing its identity as a library? Or why doesn't anyone notice that a government created by and for thirteen tiny colonies might not be structurally capable of good governance of 300 million? I run into the same tired old arguments over and over again. I don't care if Thomas Jefferson was happy with government funded libraries; he also happily did the whole Louisiana Purchase thing without even thinking about whether or not it was advisable. One would think, considering that America had found out quite painfully that Parliament wasn't up to the task of legislating across the Atlantic, that one might at least come up with regional congresses, or some attempt at a solution; but I suppose by this time everybody was believing the anti-monarchy mythology, despite the fact old George didn't have enough power to be the real problem.

An appeal to Jefferson is hardly consequential to either matter because structurally, both entities have specific requirements; go beyond those requirement and the entities begin to degrade: continue in that fashion long enough and they cease to work altogether. Even the state congresses purport to serve far more people than they should, and part of the reason states are going bankrupt is that the system is structurally unsound. In fact, the only reason why states are falling before the federal government did is because the federal government can create it's own money; money that leaches value right out of your pocket, and essentially functions as an invisible tax. Inflation sucks purchasing power righting into the gaping black hole that is Washington D.C, keeping it alive for just a little bit longer than its smaller brethren.

I feel disheartened after having apparently unfruitful conversations.

No comments: