Search

ARCHIVES
CONTACT US
WORLD NEWS

Might doesn't make right

To the editor,

In the Nov. 3 issue of the Wildcat there were two opinions side-by-side, both presenting false dichotomies of a political situation.

First, John Ward argues that Internet commerce must be taxed because otherwise states and localities will lose precious tax money to pay for government services. So a state or a locality won't be able to fund a "service" that government shouldn't fund anyway-like roads or welfare.

Oh boo hoo. Why can't people who want to use the roads pay for it themselves (i.e. user fees)? In other words, why can't the growth in internet trade force us to come to terms with a simple law of nature - "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch?"

Second, David Cieslak presents the issue of the offensive (to some) Brooklyn Museum of Art exhibit and Mayor Giuliani's attempt to stop the exhibit that was recently struck down by a federal judge. Cieslak (and the court) argues that withholding public funds from an art exhibit is a violation of the First Amendment (free speech).

Giuliani on the other hand argues that it *is* a violation of the First Amendment-just that other part about religion. Hogwash! It isn't about either! The question is whether the government is allowed to fund something with citizens' money that some of those citizens may not want to fund.

Why should Mr. Ron the Catholic be forced to support a display that violates his belief that the Virgin Mary should not be desecrated? Or why should Mr. John Animals-have-rights be forced to pay for the vivisection of an animal?

I don't believe there's anything wrong with criticizing Catholicism or killing animals - but I have to respect my fellow citizens' opinions and not force them to pay for mine.

Both of these opinions have an idea in common - that the government is allowed to forcibly remove property from citizens to pay for things other than police, courts and national defense. If I held a gun to a man's head and demanded he give me his clothing so I could give it to a poor person (or a starving artist) I would be convicted of theft with a deadly weapon.

But for some reason if a government "for the people, by the people" does it, it is seen as a proper function of government. When did might make right?

Rachael Ludwick

Computer science and mathematics junior