The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 6 of 11)

br> Re: Shawn Macomber's A Time to Deny : /p>

One of the reasons that there is so little resistance to the premature correction of a situation that is not a proven problem is the belief that it matters not a whit on what the government spends its money. Further, it is believed that even if Global Warming turns out to be a hoax, there will still be a lot of people who will make a lot of money from it and be able to do great things with it.

The government should have a pretty good idea before even collecting the money that the purpose of the money has some kind of productive component. Spending money on diverting a comet that never would have hit the Earth anyway would be considered wasteful or consumptive. If consumptive spending was just as good as productive spending, then there would be no moral justification for arresting and prosecuting con artists. Productive spending lets the whole of society step up from a lower level while consumptive spending builds no or a much smaller step.

p>If there is uncertainty but agonizing possibilities of disaster, the calculation is a little more difficult. But, as a general rule, the more uncertainty of a negative effect, the less one should spend on it. This is particularly true if the act has negative possibilities. If you do not have the resources to compensate the innocent for the mistake, your pocketbook is not big enough to play hero or fool. br> -- Danny L. Newton br> Cookeville, Tennessee /p> p> THE REAL DEAL? br> Re: Russ Ferguson's As the World Churns

topics:
Trade, John McCain, Business, Islam, Abortion, Global Warming, Law, Iran, Socialism, Oil