Voting

[Mr. Wynand]

I received my ballot here in Seattle thinking I would finish it in no time at all. However, I can't decide on two votes. The first is to provide additional state funding to veterans by levying an increase in property taxes. (Yeah, I know taxes=slavery.) The second was to allow the city council to continue preparing and to replace an *unsafe* portion (Alaskan Way Viaduct) of a freeway with another *safer* portion. An earthquake in California destroyed a similarly designed viaduct in 1989, and in 2001, Seattle's viaduct was damaged by an earthquake and needed minor repairs. Here's the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_Way_Viaduct

Anyway, what is the objectivist position on these issues? The military is a legitimate function of government, but is it moral to vote for more taxes if you believe that soldiers should receive more money? I know that roads should be private, but is it moral to vote to raise taxes to avoid a potential disaster?

[Zip]

The military is a proper function of government, but not at the state level as I understand it.

The federal government determines pensions and compensation for Vets why should a state offer up more? If your state offered the best plan what would stop more vets from moving to your state to take advantage of their (relatively) generous package? People tend to get emotional about Vets pensions and support but remember long gone are the days when an amputation meant begging on the sidewalk. Many people who suffer serious injuries in war now can expect to live relatively normal and productive lives.

As long as the infrastructure is owned and controlled by the state then there is little choice but to allow the state to have the money it needs to maintain it. Having said that I can bet that there are a multitude of government programs that are an absolute waste of money... There should be pressure on government to cut these in order to provide the money for the infrastructure that it is their responsibility to maintain.