Taxpayers for sure shouldn't be forced to subsidize football stadiums against their will, but that is a flaw of our system in general, not specific to the NFL. I don't see any guns wielded by the NFL in any of that. The issue is with what we tolerate by the elected gun holders.
Who is it that is taking football seriously who shouldn't? I mean, in terms of folks who it would appropriate for any of us here to dictate 'should' to?
That's a sentiment a parent might direct at a child; totally appropriate.
But ... where else?
Change the channel. Don't buy Sports Illustrated. Don't buy a ticket to the games. Don't play football. Don't watch football. Don't take it seriously. Check, check, check, check, and check; all painlessly accessible to we peers living in freedom.
And then there are the Buzz Bissingers of the world, getting healthy on the rest of us by taking on something he's only ever appreciated from afar, as a fan. Still scarred over past shortcomings on playing fields long blown away. Perseverating about a game he's never played, worried about the culture inside of locker rooms hes never been a part of. Pounding on the walls, trying to tear them down, working overtime on the free choices of his peers. Should have heard that twit at Columbia going on about football with that other 'Blink' idiot, tag teaming the folks who, in their minds, were still giving them wedgies in the hallways of their adolescent memories.
In a nation of peers living in freedom, under models of free association, in what context is it ever appropriate to dictate 'should' to others?
I think there are such contexts; the contexts are, when those choices impinge on others unwillingly, via forced association (ie, any examples of taxpayers unwilling funding football stadiums.)
Anywhere else? (Ignore the Ivy League for now; paternalistic megalomania is taught there.)
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 10/13, 9:23am)