That was a fine essay, and as always, well-written.

It ignores the most fundamental issue in this entire debate.

It's his money.

It's not your money. It's not the girl's money. It's not the park's money. It's not the government's money. It's not the fire department's money. It's his.

The idea that someone has a right to the wealth they earn is a concept that most leftists, and too many liberals, seem to be utterly incapable of wrapping their minds around. It doesn't matter that the entire world may have much better uses for that money--by their judgment, of course--than Lileks does.

The liberals cry out, "it's so OBVIOUS that there are many better uses for that money than building stairs! I don't understand!"

No, they honestly don't. And maybe they never will.

I pay my taxes. Taxes higher than a serf paid hundreds of years ago. And I give to charities--people who ask for instead of demand money.

But if some fuckwad came to my door and looked me in the eye and tells me that he has a RIGHT to the money I earned with the hours and days and weeks of my irreplacable life, simply because he thinks he has a better place to put it than I do--by his judgment, not mine--I'd be a lot less polite than Lileks was.

And let me point out, not for the first time, that the essential functions that liberals always list in these cases--fire departments, roads, libraries and the like--are a FRACTION of the expenditures of government. Add it up sometime--you can even throw in the military. Most of our budget is simple wealth redistribution--money taken from small groups of voters and handed out en masse to large groups to buy their votes. And the appetite for this is limitless.

That's my take on it.

Lileks has an e-mail address: fence@startribune.com

Send your reasoning to him. I wouldn't mind seeing his reply, if any.