About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 3:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What is the source of the plastic saxophone story?  The excerpt here does not specify that the mayor purchased the saxophone using government funds, just that the purchaser happened to be the mayor of Kansas City. 

Post 1

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 4:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pssst...  Government officials are paid with tax dollars.

But I see your point. 

However, I'm willing to bet the instrument was purchased with the salary paid by the masses of Kansas City, unless the good mayor was independently wealthy. 


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 7:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The smaller point: So, having earned a salary supported by taxes, the mayor has no right to use that money how he or she sees fit? Are you saying that anyone who works for the government, or works for a business that has government contracts, or works for a business that does business with any government worker can't make certain transactions?

The bigger point: if the mayor of Kansas City didn't use tax dollars, Tibor's point falls all to hell. The only information I could find on-line was that there was a philanthropic effort recently in Kansas City to honor Charlie Parker--and the community raised money for it.


Post 3

Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 8:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The smaller point: So, having earned a salary supported by taxes, the mayor has no right to use that money how he or she sees fit?
He has no right to avoid the kind of criticism that's been offered here.  If you find the mayor's actions moral, you'll need a better argument than mere rationalization: "He earned it, so he can do what he wants with it."

Are you saying that anyone who works for the government, or works for a business that has government contracts, or works for a business that does business with any government worker can't make certain transactions?
The US Government is the biggest employer in the world, yet it produces exactly nothing to pay those wages. Taking from Peter to pay Paul is not an action immune from scrutiny.

As pointed out by Machan:

There have always been ample numbers of voluntary agencies stepping up where genuine support was justified—I noted this in my book, Generosity (1998). But that historical fact doesn’t seem to impress the cheerleaders of expanded state power. They keep bringing up the poor, sick, and orphaned so as to induce in the rest of us support for their dream society, the all powerful welfare state.

     The story about the plastic saxophone illustrates very nicely, though, just how readily those in government abandon a commitment to confining their activism to helping those in dire straits.

Charlie Parker is dead. There's no helping the man now.  If the mayor paid almost $100,000 to help businesses destroyed by Katrina last year, I'd have no quarrel with the man.

I am opposed to full time government with departments of every stripe, paying employees of every bend, full time pay and benefits for work that produces nothing but headaches for non-government employees, usually at a rate far far better than those in the private sector, at the expense of real production, that facilitates real benefits for real live citizens, not dead ones.  



Post 4

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 7:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The program on TV I saw about this--which I didn't record because I was on the road--stated unequivocally that the mayor used tax monies to buy the instrument. "1994 Mayor Emanuel Cleaver of Kansas City spent $140,000 in public money to buy a plastic saxophone that belonged to Charlie Parker."    (WSJ, 11/19/97, p.A20)
(Edited by Machan on 8/22, 7:11pm)


Post 5

Monday, August 28, 2006 - 4:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa,
What about the mayor's actions was NOT moral?  That is, if he had made the purchase with his own money he earned from his salary, why is that a problem?  And why wouldn't you have a problem with him giving the same amount of money to a Hurricane Katrina "victim"?  Every person affected by Katrina had the same opportunity to buy insurance as every other person in the rest of the United States.  An adequately insured person would not need someone else to give them $100k to recover from a natural disaster.

Machan,
Thanks for the info.  Based on Chuck's post, I'm now lead to believe that this purchase was pre-planned, though.  If the money was obtained through a specific "philanthropic effort" to fund the purchase, then I still don't see a problem with it.

(Edited by Ms. Deanna Delancey on 8/28, 4:15pm)


Post 6

Monday, August 28, 2006 - 9:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That is, if he had made the purchase with his own money he earned from his salary, why is that a problem?
It wasn't "his own money."  That's the problem.  Public service performed by elected officials isn't an "industry" that produces anything. Taxpayer's aren't an official's "customers."   Any pay they receive is supposed to be a stipend to help offset the costs of holding an elected office position. It's not supposed to be a full time job with full time pay and benefits. Politics isn't a "career."

But because legislators keep passing more and more laws that restrict more and more freedoms, maintenance of those laws takes money. Public "service" has turned into the public "trough."

And why wouldn't you have a problem with him giving the same amount of money to a Hurricane Katrina "victim"?
Because life, to me, is more valuable than a plastic saxophone. And life should be more valuable to a public servant who took an oath that it would be.
Instead, he uses a huge pile of cash paid to him out of the pockets of producers to buy a plastic saxophone to display in a museum. Nauseating.

Every person affected by Katrina had the same opportunity to buy insurance as every other person in the rest of the United States.   

I'm not going to scorn individuals who miscalculate the risks while trying to earn an honest living, opposed to those who collect their pay from worker's backs, and then buy plastic saxophones with that money. 

(Darling offspring ;)




Post 7

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 9:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa,
Thank you!  Your responses make perfect sense, and having heard them, I have to agree with you.

I myself am a Katrina victim, although I prefer Katrina survivor.  I don't choose to be a victim, but it's all semantics, anyway.  I live and work daily in the aftermath, so I am hyper-sensitive to all things Katrina. 

Darling offspring? 


Post 8

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 3:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Darling offspring? 
<hijack begins>
Oops! I assumed the avatar was a picture of your boy, but perhaps it's of yourself?  Too cute.

Hoping all is well.  You'll make new friends here. :)

</hijack ends>   


Post 9

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 9:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh, I just hate those pesky hijackers.  I had a blonde moment, obviously, and totally missed that you were referring to my avatar.  You were right, that is my boy and he is darling.  Thanks much! 

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.