I was hoping for some political fireworks on this, Ardis, but you’ve trained all your respondents well. I guess I’ll have to watch the VP debate for the fireworks.

I often feel that not enough citizens consider the costs carefully when demanding additional government services. I admit that many of the questions about what government should tax for are difficult, but that just means that additional consideration is required. Sometimes we forget the costs involved (and who is paying those costs) in our passion to have a certain program or initiative from government.

Anyway, thanks again for the post. I’m going to add your blog to my list of “frequently visited blogs” .

We must recognize, too, the manifold productive functions of government in our complex economic world. By preserving the rights of private property, by maintaining freedom of contract, by defining and enforcing the terms of free competition, by extending the sphere of government ownership and operations where expediency demands, and by conserving the natural resources, the government exercises important economic functions that could not be performed so effectively by private agencies. …

However, we must also become more conscious of the fact that each new governmental service will require additional funds, which means heavier taxation. Consequently, if we are getting concerned over the amount of our tax ‘burden,’ we shall have to curtail our demands for increased governmental service. We simply cannot continue to add new forms of education, public health service, unemployment insurance, old age pensions and work relief projects, without taxation to pay the bills. if they are necessary, and if we can afford such services, if that is the wisest way to use our surplus income, then the new program is justified – and we should not complain at high taxes, if we are paying no more than our just share.

But if the tax load is really becoming a burden, perhaps we are becoming a little governmentally extravagant, just as any other luxury expenditure, beyond our financial ability, would be considered extravagant. the problem is one for each citizen to ponder over, to study carefully, and to vote on intelligently when the opportunity presents itself.

I chose paragraphs that seemed to address current problems (if in quaint terms — Researcher’s cow and Mark B.’s chickens maybe need to be updated with some other form of food production!), but not to suit a particular political or economic philosophy. As these additional lines show, this manual really does seem to be comprehensive, at least at the level of a non-specialist like me.

And I’m impressed by everybody’s comments, as usual. I half expected there to be some really wacky political diatribes — I’m grateful there haven’t been! Don’t take this as a request! — but instead, it’s the usual thoughtful remarks. Makes me hopeful that lessons from a manual like this could be discussed intelligently in a church setting today.

Recently Joe Biden (Democratic VP nominee) said something to the effect that paying [more?] taxes was a patriotic thing. Which brings me to my point – at what point does paying taxes go beyond what is good or “patriotic?” I agree with the section on taxes quoted above that we shouldn’t view many taxes as a burden at all – we need things like roads, fire departments, etc. But taxes hardly pay for such things today in my view. More often than not you hear about cities taking out bonds to cover public works. The taxes are given to corporations to lure them to a particular location or to special interests or other pet projects (bridge to nowhere?). Our government is out of control and just continues to grow unchecked!

So I feel like I’m off topic now with my rant, but I just couldn’t resist dropping my $.02.

It may be nice to have a steady source of milk and cream (and later, steaks and burgers), but owning a cow is really a misstatement. It’s the cow that owns you. It’s like an American Express card, but it’s way too big to fit in your wallet.

Chickens, on the other hand, are relatively easy to keep (you don’t have to milk them twice a day, or ever, for that matter–in fact, if you start trying to milk your chickens, I’ll report you), their droppings make good fertilizer for your garden, fresh eggs are incomparably better than the ones you get in the supermarket and you can have free range chicken whenever you feel like wringing one of your children’s necks, but do it to a chicken instead. (Boy, think of the escape valve that would be!)

I’m not sure if an economic system that placed “more emphasis on economic security, and less emphasis on profits, expansion and exploitation” would in fact result in greater economic security. I suspect that the Adam Smithians and the Friedrich Hayekians would argue strenuously in favor of “profits, expansion and exploitation.” (I do wonder what they meant by “exploitation.” It now has a pejorative connotation in almost every context–but it wasn’t always so. The OED gives the following definitions: 1. The action of exploiting or turning to account; productive working or profitable management (of mines, cattle, etc.) and 2. The action of turning to account for selfish purposes, using for one’s own profit.)

As I read that portion about mortgaging away a debt-free farm, I thought of our SP counselor’s words …