Dear visionaries,
In talking about government schools, whether we should have to pay for asphalt that covers streets we never drive on is not a good counterexample. Of course we agree that collective societal action cannot be one vast time-share arrangement.
The question is actually what criteria should we use to determine what kind of activities can be applied to all of us in this way. We all agree on the street lights. Would we all agree if the government (local, state, or federal) started publishing a newspaper? If they published a newspaper that contained (surprise!) daily editorials praising the wisdom and insight of the current administration, would it be unreasonable to ask to opt out of that?
I once asked a local journalist (a decided liberal) why he supported government control of education and opposed government control of newspapers. He said that he did so because education was so important. But does this mean that the government should only be prohibited from controlling the flow of unimportant information?
I am willing for the government to control the flow of water, and I am willing for them to control the flow of traffic. I am not willing for them to control the flow of information. But if you differ with this, and think that they should be allowed to control the flow of information, then why not a public newspaper? Isn’t that “flow of information?” And would I be allowed to opt out?
“Apologetics in the Void” are repostings from an on-going electronic discussion and debate I had some time ago with members of our local community, whose names I have changed. The list serve is called Vision 20/20, and hence the name “visionaries.” Reading just these posts probably feels like listening to one half of a phone conversation, but I don’t feel at liberty to publish what others have written. But I have been editing these posts (lightly) with intelligibility in mind.