"If I were taking up the game now instead of 1969 I don't know if golf would have really grabbed the hook it has on me now." Matt Ward
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matt,
And you offer that as substantiation for government golf? I guess I should be thankful that my benevolent superiors didn't perceive the benefits of acres of open fields and stables where I may have developed a polo addiction. Just kidding, of course.
As to moving for golf, I was only half serious, though I've done it myself once and will likely do it again before too long.
In contrast, my son, who enjoys golf and was a very good player in high school, won't even move across the Hudson so he can have a car and access to golf. In his evaluation, the benefits of living in Manhattan far outweigh the negatives, so he plays only a handful of rounds each year. Is it reasonable for him to ask NYC to build a golf course for like-minded folks within easy access? I think not.
AGC,
I didn't mean to be condescending in suggesting that moving might be reasonable option for those who have a great interest in golf, but live in underserved areas. You might be surprised how many people consider golf, weather, and other recreation/quality of life issues when deciding where to live. My wife and I certainly did when we moved from Ohio to Texas, and will be again when we leave CA (paradise weatherwise, but little more).
Nothing in what I've written suggests that government does not have a role in our society. Of the functions you have noted that are legitimate for government, national defense, protection from criminals, and enforcement of criminal and civil laws are the most important and have the most support in our founding documents.
I would have added the education of the masses, but the deteriorating results of the government monopoly in primary and secondary education, despite substantial increases in per-capita, inflation-adjusted "investments", give me pause. At some point in time in the real world where making wrong decisions have real consequences, I was taught that pouring good money in after bad is not a very smart thing.
If government had a fine record in the golf business- why did Bethpage become a crime-ridden, rat-infested slum before the USGA came in with the cash infusion; why does it take six hours to play short, poorly conditioned munis in SoCAl?- and we had budget surpluses, perhaps we could be thinking in good conscience about providing golf as recreation to 10% - 15% of our population. I don't think that we are there.
As to how democracies work, I never questioned the ability of government to gain powers which it should not have. Indeed, that was the foremost concern of many of our founders.
We've discussed this before, but one man-one vote loses its legitimacy and effectiveness when a majority can vote itself benefits while saddling others with the attendant costs. With nearly 50% of our population not paying federal income tax, we are very close to that point.
I've previously provided a few of the many admonitions and cautions from our founders regarding govenment usurping our individual rights and responsibilites. I am not so pessimistic as some of my acquaintances who believe that our society as in a downward spiral to points unknown. However, I will venture to say that with the unthinkable upcoming unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and public employee pensions, the need for government funded golf will not likely cross our benevolent superiors' minds.
In my humble opinion, golf will adjust and survive. As long as the game continues to capture our hearts and imagination, just like nature, it will find a way.