Clearly, none of the non-voters ever read Matilda. Or understand that ultimately, the lack of public services will put everyone back.
1. Almost all media in the US is severely biased.
2. This to me at least looks like something called the "national parks strategy." This is when the government funds its unpopular pet projects (frequently theft), and underfunds popular programs such as national parks, roads and the like then threatens the public with their closure if they do not pass tax increases. Frequently, if the tax is passed, they do a show project and misallocate the rest of the money. Over the time citizens have become wise and vote--entirely rationally-- for the safest option which is, no new taxes.
California is in the midst of such a battle now: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/11/californians...
a. well below the rate of inflation
and
b. not enraging people.
Your conservative friend will tell you the Washington Times is more fact-based and the New York Times is heavily biased. Your liberal friend will tell you the New York Times is more fact-based and the Washington Times is heavily biased.
Your first conclusion might be that one of your friends (whichever one whose beliefs oppose yours more) is insane or uneducated on what you know is true.
The more likely conclusion, however, is that each of these papers weaves heavy amounts of opinion, spin, and perspective on the "facts" it conveys, and that opinion and spin is invisible to those who share the same biases, while being conspicuous and grating to those who do not.
Ultimately, things like this are probably for the better.
People would probably be much more supportive of paying for government services if they were getting the level of quality and efficiency Norwegian taxpayers get. :)
Moving from the US to another country it's amazing how well-liked government institutions are, even including the local equivalent of the IRS. And with good reason; they're well run too. In the US, the DMV is a punchline and a staple of standup comedy; a shorthand for the towering, malevolent incompetence of government, but most parts of government would work just as well. You could go years without a positive interaction with the government.
It was quite an interesting surprise to learn there are parts of the world where the government functions well and an interaction with them is not to be dreaded.
I was surprised to hear you describe people voting against continued public service as 'selfish'. Why would you consider them selfish?
Maybe libraries are a moot point, given the Internet. But the same issues come up for schools, police, fire, roads, bridges, etc. I mean, I have no children, so paying for schools seems like a rip-off sometimes. But on the other hand, I like living in a society that's at least somewhat literate.
If you have e.g. public health system, and public education, at high standards, your chance of success is to a vastly greater degree decoupled from the wealth of your family, or the suburb you live in.
The benefit is that society as a whole gets richer, you reduce crime, etc etc. Basically what comes around goes around.
To be opposed to having great public benefits e.g. just because you are from a family of great wealth and are unwilling to share some of that for the greater good is thus something I ultimately define as selfish. I also think it is short sighted, as no matter how well off you are the higher the chances you'll be affected by things like crime.
Hopefully this explains my thinking.
As a fellow Euro I really recommend the book American Nations by Colin Woodard (actually also from Oregon) if you want to understand the strange contradictions of US politics. One of the best history books I've read.