On balance, the will of the majority should NOT be the determining factor in the use of public funds.
We will see.
Lets look at it for a moment here, of course I am assuming public money is that which has been gained through taxation (there are many different definitions but this is the one that's most common). So here we go into the nitty gritty of things. How does the public majority make itself heard? Here I will be taking some examples we'll all know about. So lets look at the will of the majority in some of these then:
Case number one- Springfield
For all those who have ever switched on a TV, they shall know that Springfield is in fact the home of the cartoon family "The Simpsons." We can all think of examples from this show where they have had a town meeting to decide how to use public money. We also knows what generally happens, some wacky scheme is given the go ahead and the will of the majority fail whilst either Lisa or Marge is right. The monorail episode is the best example of this.
Okay, so you are
really going to use a television show, an animated one (don't get me wrong, I love it) that is very outlandish, featuring talking aliens, to make a point. I'm sorry, I am not buying it. I am not going to take something that happens on Simpsons as a good point in a debate.
Case number two - The Internet Wrestling Community
This shows us that the majority of people think Cena sux and that he only knows five moves. Look at it some more, Cena is regularly getting the biggest pops of the night and improving month in month out. This shows that the majority is in fact wrong.
What in thy holy h-e-double hockey sticks does the IWC have to do with public funding. That enough fails your argument here, try reading the question. Besides, I know alot of the IWC, alot of people here, that do in fact laugh at people that say Cena sucks and that he knows five moves. I am one of them. But this isn't a wrestling debate, let's not go their. Read the topic.
Case number three - Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address in 1801 said, "Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable;...the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression". The law provides protection when the majority is wrong which happens quite often!
Yes, but this does not mean that the majority cannot win. What if the majority is right and their idea benefits the minority. What's the law going to protect the minority from then? That is what I thought.
Case number four- History
Slavery was what teh majority thought was right, Nazi Germany thought Nazism was right, themajority thought women shouldn't vote until the late 19th/early 20th century, and what about blacks and buses?
Since when does slavery and woman suffrage have to do with public funding.
One of the most common creatures on the planet is the humble fly. It's main diet is shit, does that mean eating shit is right because the majority does it?
Oh so flies are paying taxes now? Once again, nothing to do with public funding.
Then we have the question as to how to determine the public majority? Should you hold a referrendum for every decision? That's impractical. What about listen to the wavelengths? Ah but it's the most vocal that are heard, not the majority.
I see no problem with holding a referrendum for major public spending endeavors. That way we get what the public wants. And if the public screws up, they deal with the consequences. it's kind of like electing a new president. People voted for him. After 9/11, a majority didn't like him. But they had to deal with him, because that was who they voted for. The majority is how we chose who runs our country, the biggest choice we can make. So why not use it for public spending, something not as big.
Using these examples it's clear the majority can't be trusted and it is for that reason goverment exists in turn to determine how public money is spent. Public money in the UK has strict rules on how it can and can't be spent and personally I feel that that is needed as it will have a better long term future than what the majority want at the time.
Yeah, maybe it's clear the majority is wrong about slavery, or maybe it's clear that outlandish animated TV writers have the same opinion as you, and maybe it's clear that flies, who really have no place in this since they aren't even human, have a majority of stomachs hungry for some warm ol' poop. But it proves nothing above that.
