4 ms·
You missed the point of my comment. It's invisible because it _prevents_ bad things from happening, and it results in a boring world. Just one example: I have o
by jhedwards 5y ago
You missed the point of my comment. It's invisible because it _prevents_ bad things from happening, and it results in a boring world. Just one example: I have only had food poisoning maybe one or two times in my time living in the US. Food safety and restaurant safety is invisible. Or how about fishery management? Have you thought recently about how fisheries in the PNW are _not_ depleted and why that is? Of course you haven't. No one would notice those fisheries unless they disappeared, and they won't because the government is protecting them.
Your examples show that there is money being used in malicious ways, which I don't disagree with, but it doesn't mean that there aren't a huge amount of positive things happening. There are so many of these it's impossible for a single individual to know all of them.
- zionic 5y agoI believe the core problem with your position is you're not acknowledging the orders of magnitude in cost between protecting a fishery or enforcing food safety standards vs say... $10 Trillion to blow up and rebuild Iraq. You've articulated a few highly non-controversial programs which is fine, but to then project that unto the government as a whole when programs like that are the exception not the norm is unfair. "Unimaginable theft and loss of life carried out by our government and laundered by "reputable" sources like NYTimes? But what about some fisheries man?! We can't scale back the government!" It just comes off as inauthentic.