>>Are you suggesting some sort of a non-taxing government setup? How would such a government operate? If not, then they would first have to decide not to have a war, then decide what it would have cost had they decided otherwise, and then return only that money to the citizenry?
>
>Nope, simply saying some of the suggestions ( the rail etc ) presupposed that it was the government's money to spend rather than saying "Gee if we don't need the money for national defense let's give it back to the people we took it from to begin with instead of looking for other things we - the enlightened, caring people who care so much we are willing to spend other people's money to show how much we care - think is good for them."

Ah, but you can't do that (ask the people, I mean), physically. The people to whom that money belongs are not born yet :).

>Social engineering works well in college classrooms and on drawing boards, where it is never tested against outcomes. People spending their own money have stricture ROI requirements.
>
>"I know I'm a better person than Bill Gates because while he is willing to spend 10 billion of his own money to help the poor I am willing to spend 20 billion of his money to help the poor"

That's one of the reasons I don't believe in charity either. Those who got their money by dirty tricks are just paying to wash their biographies.