Big Bird bunk

Are the advocates of the Public Broadcasting System in the Big Bird dust-up really so ignorant as to think the issue is whether Big Bird should exist? That his extinction will be ordered unless taxpayer support of PBS continues?

The real issue, of course, is whether private property should be confiscated by force to support a cute children’s character. Any time the government spends money, that confiscation is the ultimate source of the revenue.

Certain constitutional duties easily pass the confiscation test. Of course it’s worthwhile to confiscate private property by force to have the government maintain a national defense and civil order. But a children’s character that would, in the absence of government support, undoubtedly get the generous patronage of private individuals and foundations? Give me a break.

14 thoughts on “Big Bird bunk”

  1. Although a fan of PBS, I never made a personal donation because the government was forcing me to do so without my consent, using my taxes. This year after WVPT lost state funding, I made my first contribution in years.
    I suspect this will happen all over when the government stops funding special interest such as PBS and Planned Parenthood. Maybe the rich Hollywood types can step up and pay their “fair share” in support of these non-government functions.

  2. I am a little concerned that without government support, we would see things like Exxon Mobil Sesame Street, or Boeing Big Bird. This would undermine your vision of a free society, Libertarian, by training kids to favor the corporatists.

  3. Traveler,
    A question, if I might…If we continue to allow government support of things outside their scope of responsibility, won’t we be teaching kids to expect the government to take care of all their wants? Wouldn’t this discourage self reliance?

  4. McGill– It all depends upon how you define “scope of responsibility”. A true conservative might define it as providing very little support for its citizens. Thus, their child would have that value instilled in them. Conversely, a more liberal person might see that it is our collective responsibility, as reflected in our government, to spend some of our taxes in providing care for our less fortunate citizens (such as Medicaid) as well as to support programs (such as NPR)that help to educate and inform its citizens. Naturally they would see it as important to instill these values in their children. Certainly the latter group would not see this as espousing that the government should take care of ALL of their wants/needs.

  5. The issue as I see it is that the bar that defines the “less fortunate” is not stable. As soon as the bar is lowered to include a new group that the liberals deem less fortunate the argument begins again. What about the people that are just above the bar, how can we not help them too? So, the bar is once again, lowered. We are at a point now, that a family of 4 with a $40,000 income is considered destitute. The middle class in many counties would love to be part of America’s less fortunate.
    A secondary issue, but one just as troubling, is the liberal’s approach to accountability. If the government is going to spend other peoples money, then it should be required to insure that the truly needy are receiving aid. As it stands, the government (i.e liberals) have a head in the sand view of the number of cheaters scamming the system. They just won’t acknowledge that a problem exists.
    If they are going to spend money on things, especially things that half the citizens don’t agree with, they should be made to do it responsibily.
    As far as the children believing the government should take of their wants, that’s a given because half of the adults in this country already believe it.
    NPR, Planned Parenthood etc. serve only to advance the agenda of liberals. If the money is to be spent, then a truly balanced approach has to be taken so that all people benefit, regardless of political ideologies.

  6. Many of our fellow citizens have the idea that the government should do everything that “sounds nice.” It sounds nice to wisely provide a compassionate safety net, and we end up destroying low income families. But back to the original point, Big Bird sounds nice and so ought to get government money. When we’re on an unsustainable borrowing binge — as we are right now — there really shouldn’t be much discussion about spending money on things that just “sound nice.” It should be essential government functions, period.

  7. Of course, in your opinion, Libertarian. To me the biggest drain on tax dollars is the military and its need to police the whole world. Big Bird is small potatoes and a diversion in the topic on what causes deficit spending.

  8. Our current President has chosen to fore go the “policing of whole world” and the spending has continued. One of the main functions of the government is to provide for the common defense. Big Bird alone is small potatoes, but add together all the Big Birds the government sponsors and it adds up to more than all us collective cowboys make (apologies to Jerry Reed).
    We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar the government spends and the Fed just keeps adding zero’s to the amount of money it pretends to have.
    Something has to give and we can’t continue down this path to bankruptcy. Liberals, regardless of their overzealous good intentions will have to realize this and soon.
    No one expects the truly needy to be ignored but we have to have responsible government.

  9. Just think how much money we could save if our Defense Department had a truly defensive mission, even very broadly defined “defensive.”

  10. This is gonna be scary…….I’m about to sound like Old Timer. Think about how many innocent people would be dead and the make up of the world if we had been totally defensive so in the past.
    Having made a “semi liberal” comment I will now check myself in for treatment.:)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *