[OutsiderFan]

Yes. Donors who want a say in where their money goes are "selfish." But those who want to fund their career training by extracting money from me at gunpoint are merely "having a say in their own lives." Thanks for the quick lesson in Orwellian doublespeak.

The ones that have a say in their lives are tax payers of the state of Florida.  If taxes are cut on the citizens so they don't have to pay for CS, and market forces decide what should be taught or researched, they are giving up the right to have a say in their lives.  The visceral "taking my money at gunpoint so they can fund their training" attitude in this response is showing a great deal of defensiveness, and missing the issue at hand in full context.

It can be argued whether or not we are better off with the Internet than we would be without it.  But if we left market forces to decide everything, we probably wouldn't have an Internet, had the Apollo program, or have the Interstate Highway system.  So sure it is the prerogative of any donor to see to it their money is spent how they want it spent.  The issue is considering the opportunity cost of allowing that dynamic to prevail across the board.

Are Floridians really better off paying less taxes so they can let the market decide what happens to the CS program?  This is the point the author of the book wants to see debated. 

[OutsiderFan]

Yes. Donors who want a say in where their money goes are "selfish." But those who want to fund their career training by extracting money from me at gunpoint are merely "having a say in their own lives." Thanks for the quick lesson in Orwellian doublespeak.

The ones that have a say in their lives are tax payers of the state of Florida.  If taxes are cut on the citizens so they don't have to pay for CS, and market forces decide what should be taught or researched, they are giving up the right to have a say in their lives.  The visceral "taking my money at gunpoint so they can fund their training" attitude in this response is showing a great deal of defensiveness, and missing the issue at hand in full context.

It can be argued whether or not we are better off with the Internet than we would be without it.  But if we left market forces to decide everything, we probably wouldn't have an Internet, had the Apollo program, or have the Interstate Highway system.  So sure it is the prerogative of any donor to see to it their money is spent how they want it spent.  The issue is considering the opportunity cost of allowing that dynamic to prevail across the board.

Are Floridians really better off paying less taxes so they can let the market decide what happens to the CS program?  This is the point the author of the book wants to see debated.