So now that Donald Trump has taken office and promised to cut funding to many areas dear to liberals and progressives, the left is trying to fight back. I saw a liberal friend on Facebook post the following status, urging people to call their senators in support of PBS Kids.
I live in Southern California and it is very liberal out here (obviously), and I see many of my friends and family getting angry and/or lamenting the possible reduction in government programs (both real and imagined proposed reductions). And seeing this post reminded me of something a friend of mine, Sterling Reece (an author over at Altar and Throne, go check them out) had said recently:
Advocating for coercive government funding of a “needed” program is an admission that said program provides zero value.
This is because these people think that if coerced funding for these programs were cut, these programs would cease to exist. And this is a tacit confession that these services actually have no market value. I for one think something like PBS could exist on the free market. Of course I do. But these liberal doom soothsayers think otherwise. Their argument doesn’t even argue for what they want. If they truly believe that these services would disappear without coerced funding, than that means that funding this project is a waste and it should of course be cut. Why drain people’s wallets to support something that isn’t needed? And if they believe that this service does provide real market value, then why do they fear the idea of funding being cut? If the service is so fantastic, then it could easily be funded on the free market voluntarily.
This is really just a classic case of regular people having a tenuous grasp on logic. They want something to be true and they work backwards trying to cherry pick evidence in order to make it true. But was we all know, that’s not how truth works.