Idealists like the one just described are just that– idealists. They’d be hard pressed to prove some of their claims. In fact, there seems to be a lot of counter-examples. But they have a theory that says it’s so.

This is bad satire.
Second, by definition socialism is when the government controls the means of production, not the government providing services.

Third, city streets SHOULD support themselves with revenue via gasoline tax, vehicle and license regestrations, etc. That is how it is supposed to work. If they can’t support themselves this way (as in tax by use) they should increase these fees to cover the cost.

Equally, libraries could be served a little more by “cost by use” based model instead of most current funding schemes.

The same could be said for schools, airports, water and power, etc. (but please let’s not pretend that libraries are schools and serve the same purpose or have the same impact. Also, airports in europe are private, not govt entities.) If not, then why not food and shelter, which are much more important that schools and power to life? Why not fully fund those? I

f a library will share the cost of entertainment, why not locally funded playhouses or locally funded first run movie theaters? Some cities do have subsidized symphonies, etc. How would a subsidized waterpark or subsidized cable TV be any different? It’s entertainment.

I guess my real point is, while bad satire, it does bring forth a charicature of a point of view that is (so far in the article and comments) dismissed out of hand without countering any of the arguments with an aswer beyond a verbose “because.”

Are these two mutually exclusive? Say it’s not so!

It is sad, though, that the anti-intellectual culture that is so often promoted in the mainstream media is so pervasive that this could easily pass as a “real” article.