Letter to the editor: Word “need” inappropriate for the golf course, rec center


Editor:

So this last Friday (April 28) I read the letter to the editor, and it simply has philosophical errors that reminded me that whenever a government funded entity comes under attack, even those who want small government will turn their heads when it comes to its removal. 

The first thing that must be addressed whenever we discuss the need for a government-funded program is whether it is covered under the constitution. I don’t believe that I have read anywhere that golf or other sports should be subsidized by the government, nor should they be a public service. This is where it will always fall short on the spectrum of small government conservatives and libertarians.

If this is the case, should we open up a Planned Parenthood here in town for the needs of the women who are in less than desired economic conditions? The word “need” is used far too often, and it also is used along with the word “right.” In this case, should we argue that everyone has a right to a living wage? A right to healthcare? 

The only thing I ask when it comes to the proponents of this is that they go and explain to those who need every dime they earn (which they have a RIGHT to provide for themselves) why it is okay to confiscate their money in order to fund something they may never use. As a matter of fact, just explain it to me.

Of course, this never happens, and time after time it ends up destroying their entire argument. Whether it is funding the rec center or the golf course, how do you justify the confiscation of someone else’s wealth to prop up what you want? The golf course is not a necessity, and neither is the rec center. If anything, they have done their level best to destroy the free market in this town when it comes to the industry itself. 

The fact is, the argument put forth in this paper is not principled, and if it were done for any of the liberal programs we try to keep out of Evanston, it would fall flat.

I am not attacking the fact that it brings in some income to fast food chains, as I don’t see how parents and students would buy a house here simply based on the fact that we have a golf course. I also don’t see how it would be a detriment to our economy if we got rid of it. 

The fact is that money that we pay in taxes, be that income, property or vehicular registration, should go toward something that people from other counties use. This should be a private entity along with the rec center.

It is not the job of the everyday Evanstonian to pay for the pleasure of the few. Remember through the rhetoric that has been pushed forth this day that government has three responsibilities to protect: life, liberty and property. 

Patrick Ballinger

Evanston

More In Opinions