Posted 5/31/2001 by Beorn
The norwegian Conservative Party have been growing steadily for months, and in one poll they're even ahead of Labor. Along with the Progress Party, (who went from 16% to 34% last year, then lost it after some brutal infighting), they have lower taxes as a main issue. Looks like they've struck a nerve in our high-taxed country, and are putting the social democrats on the defensive, with barely three months left to the election.

So here's my view on taxes and government spending. It's not based on extensive economical analysis of the norwegian economy, nor on heavy political reading, or party indoctrination, all of which I leave to professionals. It's based on a very simple thought experiment:

Imagine there were no taxes, and every government agency was financed by knocking on peoples doors and begging for money. Which of the following welfare services would I personally, out of my own wallet, make an effort to keep alive?

• Police, fire and defense? Certainly.
• Health services? Of course.
• Home and health care for the old and disabled? Yes.
• Schools? Propably, but not necessarily a public one. I remember some pretty incompetent, evil or just criminally stupid teachers from my days in public schools, and if I don't get a say in keeping people like that away from kids, they don't get to waste my money.
• Social security and charity? I suppose so, can't let people starve to death, but they'd better make a serious effort to get back into work, for their own sake, and for mine. I don't see how this is insensitive. It's very cruel to feed other peoples addictions, and while anyone I know can ask me for money any time if they really need it, I wouldn't allow anyone I care about to get dependant on alms, not even (or especially not) my own brother or sisters.
• Helping poor countries? See social security part.
• Religion? No way. It's your God, you feed him.
• Science? Absolutely, there's still a lot I want humanity to discover. I'd focus on the clearly beneficial hard sciences, though.
• Paying people to live in rural areas, so we can pretend we're still a country of farmers and fishermen? No.
• Putting drug dealers in prison, harassing users and addicts, and mounting expensive anti-nicotine/alcohol/narcotics propaganda campaigns? Certainly not. (Addicts themselves asking for help to quit, though, that's different. See social security part.)
• Preventing my local grocery store from staying open on random religious holidays? You got to be kidding. Do that on your own spare time please.
• Butting into what other people watch on TV? Huh? Don't understand the question. Rephrase.
• Hiring an army of paper-shufflers to administrate all of the above? Hm, ok, but they'd better prove their usefullness. And keep the noise down, we're trying to work over here.

So that's my political philosophy. You may disagree, but the important thing here is not my answers, but the question itself: How much would you donate to these causes?

See, the problem is that whenever somebody identifies a problem in society, they always say "we must do something about this", "we can't let this happen". Not "I must do something". We. The difference is that "we" are always rich, "we" have always got extra time and money to make all bad things go away. However, "I" am poor. "I" have to struggle to make ends meet. "I" am too busy to help.

Next time some man in the street wants government to do something about it, ask them if they personally would finance whatever they're proposing, and suddenly everything looks very very different. And yet they are financing everything government does, through taxes.

Using the word we (or they!) in any discussion involving government spending, is dishonest and misleading, and the least I expect is a bit of honesty and perspective. (Respect for other peoples money as well is an optional bonus.)