Thanks for being an awesome businessperson.   And yes to all your points.

Unfortunately, the math works out that thoughtful companies like yours are a pretty tiny portion of what supports the culture, arts, health, social, and environmental needs of our country.

My argument is for people to look at what the government does for us.  It is H U G E.  Companies and individuals could not and would not make up the difference.  And we wouldn't just lose a Weird Artist Grant here and there. 

It is an absurd diversion to talk about making government significantly "smaller".  It is also absurd to talk about lowering taxes.  I wish Americans would grow up and look at their budgets and decide how to pay for all the wonderful things that surround them. Let's talk realistically.  Let's debate how to make government more efficient — instead of the circus of religious posturing and wild promises of lower taxes.

(And again — I'm not arguing with you... )

I don't think my business is that unique. Certainly not every business does this, but they don't have to, it's their choice. And if they don't, it's not an evil corporation, it's a corporation that is responding to the desires of their shareholders. I'm with you in principle on the .gov duties. The question is how much, how large and where do we draw the lines. Shared infrastructure like roads, power grids, water systems and other utilities make sense. Everyone gets access, everyone gets benefits. Then you get into the questionable ones - phone systems, TV  airwaves and the like. Originally utilities, public access, for public benefit, infrastructure built with public dollars. Eventually though, they became for fee/for profit and much of the benefit was dropped. You can still argue a communication support aspect, but these are largely entertainment / convenience services now, but they were built with public dollars and still utilize public property to operate so something is owed back to the society that supports them.

 To me it gets down to access and benefit. Benefit can be hard to define, but access is easy. If everyone doesn’t have access, then it’s hard for me to support it as a .gov function.  Arts stuff certainly does have a benefit, but art in New Hampshire is very difficult for me to access. So I think that is a function of local governments. And local politicians should be able to justify those expenditures or lose their jobs. It’s much easier for politicians to wrap up art funding with all kinds of other stuff and then pass something in DC saying that people in Nevada need to pay for public space in New Hampshire, but I don’t think that was the intent of gov. I also think that the inherent bureaucracy that comes with a system that moves money across the country is ripe for corruption or simple waste. Without the accountability we all lose.

I think people do undervalue the benefits that they get from our society (.gov as manager). But I also think they expect too much from it. If too big to fail is a problem for banks, then too big for accountability is a problem for our .gov.

I’m not arguing with you either. I think your points are largely correct. But we are dealing with finite resources, and we can’t compel people to value things the way we do. Everybody gets a vote. And if they vote to muck it up, just to see how bad it gets, then we’re along for the ride.  These are interesting times.

If you are a democrat voting in a republican primary or caucus you should write in your pet's name or just stay home.