Our Threatened Freedom

Are We Appropriating Funds for Nonsense

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Political Studies

Lesson: 75-169

Genre: Conversation

Track: 075

Dictation Name: Vol. F - Part 10- Are We Appropriating Funds for Nonsense

Location/Venue: Unknown

Year: 1980’s – 1990’s

[Dr. Rushdoony] Are we appropriating funds for nonsense? This is R.J. Rushdoony with a report on our threatened freedom.

In recent years, Senator {?} has called attention to various absurdities for which federal funds are regularly appropriated. Tip O’Neil, speaker of the house, earlier this year reported on the strange things he had written into the budget. O’Neil said, and I quote, “Once a doctor came down here to talk to us. He said the average dwarf grows on 46 inches high, and if we appropriated 45 million dollars for research, maybe that could be increased to 52 inches. So I got the 45 million dollars into the budget.” Unquote.

Now perhaps if you and I were dwarfs, we might want to be 6 inches taller, but would we be justified in asking Congress for funds to study the problem?

Millions of American men are growing bald. Is it the duty of Congress to appropriate funds for hair growing research?

Some women are very upset about being flat-chested. Should we appropriate millions of dollars to research the subject? Wouldn’t it be cheaper to suggest that they look for men who prefer flat-chested women, as some do?

In other words, why tax our fellow citizens for our problems? Why make purely personal concerns the subject of national legislation and taxation?

Of course, many of these appropriations are sought by the scientific establishment, as a means of providing them with research funds and facilities. It was, after all, not the dwarves, but a doctor who approached O’Neil for funding research on the matter. Most likely the major beneficiary of the research will be the scientific establishment, as is usually the case. Not surprisingly, there is a growing distrust of the scientific establishment, because of its plundering of the public treasury for a vast variety of sometimes trifling causes.

Of course, funding scientific research is a part of our national elitism. Together with this funding of research, we have the funding of the arts, because we have decided that culture, defined as the arts, is important. Why not then fund baseball, and make millions of Americans happy, or football, and sports on television? Films and television are an important aspect of popular culture; why not fund them through Congressional appropriations? Or better, why not stop funding all of them, and let the private sector fund whatever it wishes to see prosper? Why should we not have a freedom from constricted and compulsory support for causes of no concern to us, are hostile to our own interests and ideas? Why not try freedom?

This has been R.J. Rushdoony with a report on our threatened freedom.