Frequently Asked Questions

---

Since Bob Courtney took office in November 2019, the budget increases every year, the taxes increase every year, the city's debt increases every year, and the city's reserve fund decreases every year.

The 2023 budget was $12.7 million, excluding utilities. The total including utilities was not found.

The 2024 budget was $14.2 million, excluding utilities. The total including utilities was not found.

The 2025 budget was $15.1 million, excluding utilities. The total including utilities was $23 million.

The 2026 budget is $15.9 million, excluding utilities. The total including utilities is $25.7 million.

In addition, the 2026 budget contains two new taxes – a Wheel Tax and a Food and Beverage Tax.

In the September 4, 2025 edition of the Madison Courier,

Bob Courtney said, “Your taxes are going up. Your taxes are going up.”

The increase from 2023 to 2026 was $3.2 million, excluding utilities.

That is a 25% increase ($3.2 million / $12.7 million) in 3 years.

That's higher than inflation.

That's higher than the raises most workers received, thus reducing workers' standard of living.

This is not sustainable.

The Mayor and the City Council control the budget.

The current Mayor and the current City Council appear to be unwilling and unable to cut back their spending.

We have sent them numerous suggestions, but they have ignored every one.

They don't reply to our emails.

They don't listen.

We need a new Mayor and a new City Council.

If we can cut back City Hall's spending, then we can cut your taxes.

The authors of the Constitution were brilliant.

Their goal was to create a government in which no individual or group had too much power.

They created three branches (legislative, executive, and judicial).

They separated powers among those three branches.

They instituted a system of checks and balances to keep each branch from acquiring too much power.

Imagine if, one day, Congress (the legislative branch) said to the President (the executive branch):

"You preside over us. You have power over us. You control us."

That would destroy the separation of powers.

That would turn the President into the one man with power and control over everyone else.

No one would tolerate that.

Now consider Madison.

The Mayor plays the role of the executive branch.

The City Council plays the role of the executive branch.

On October 22, 2024, the City Council passed Ordinance 2024-6 (sponsored by Wilber and Schafer, passed by Krebs, Dattilo, Schafer, Storm, Bartlett, and Wilber)

[https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/madisonin/latest/madison_in/0-0-0-11583]

which included the following language:

"§ 30.07 RULES FOR PROCEDURE.

(B)  The Mayor shall preside over all meetings of the Common Council."

and proceeded to enumerate the powers of the Presiding Officer.

What just happened?

The City Council said to the Mayor,

"You preside over us. You have power over us. You control us."

That just destroyed the separation of powers.

That just turned the Mayor into the one man with power and control over everyone else.

Why is everyone tolerating that?

How much power and control does the Mayor have?

The Madison City Government web site page:

https://www.madison-in.gov/boards/

identifies the Boards and Commissions.

There are 15 entities comprised of appointments:

There are 2 Authorities - Port, Redevelopment

There are 7 Boards - Aviation, Public Works, Zoning Appeals, HDBR, Parks, Police Merit, Tree

There are 5 Commissions - Economic Development, Human Relations, Plan, Public Arts, Redevelopment

There is 1 Program - PACE

There are 75 seats on those 15 entities.

There are 2 seats that are not appointed:

The Mayor is on the Board of Public Works

The Madison Railroad Manager is on the Port Authority

There are 73 seats that are appointed:

1 is appointed by the School Board

2 are appointed by the Madison Police Department

2 are appointed by the Plan Commission

which is comprised of:

4 seats appointed by the Mayor

3 seats appointed by the City Council

2 seats appointed by the County Council

3 are appointed by the County Council

9 are appointed by the City Council

12 are appointed by the "Mayor with Council Consent"

44 are appointed by the Mayor

The Mayor sits on 1 seat.

The Mayor controls 44 appointments, plus 1 is 45.

The Mayor controls the City Council, which controls 9 appointments, plus 45 is 54.

The Mayor "with Council Consent" controls 12 appointments, plus 54 is 66.

The Mayor and the City Council control the Plan Commission, which controls 2 appointments, plus 66 is 68.

The Mayor controls 68 out of 75 seats.

The Mayor controls city government.

No one individual should have that much power or control.

When two individuals interact, there are two kinds of interaction:

[1] voluntary

[2]involuntary

In a voluntary interaction, both individuals choose to participate.

Each individual chooses to participate because he expects to be better off after the interaction than before.

Every voluntary interaction is "win-win".

In an involuntary interaction, one individual chooses to not participate, but is forced or coerced by the other to participate.

Every involuntary interaction is "win-lose".

Please see the FAQ "What are the two kinds of interaction?".

Morally and ethically, the primary "wrong" that one individual can do to another is to force or coerce them.

Force and coercion deprive an individual of the right to use their own mind to make decisions about their life.

Choice is better than coercion.

In a free society, all interactions are voluntary.

The more involuntary interactions, the less free is the society.

Please see the FAQ “What are the two kinds of interaction?”.

Please see the FAQ “Why is choice better than coercion?”.

It's tempting to say, “I want someone else to produce (fill in the blank), and I want to receive it, but I don't want to pay for it.”

The trouble is, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

If a producer produces (fill in the blank), there are only three ways for you to receive it:

1. a voluntary interaction, in which you pay the producer for it.

2. an involuntary interaction, in which you force or coerce the producer to give it to you;

3. you vote for politicians and legislators who pass laws and budgets and taxes which take the (fill in the blank) from the producer (i.e. force or coerce the producer, so this is an involuntary interaction) and give it to you.

If you agree that choice is better than coercion, then your only alternative is #1 above.

There are 3 choices about (fill in the blank):

[1] you use (i.e. consume) it or you don't use it

[2] you pay for it or you don't pay for it

[3] it is voluntary or involuntary

which lead to 8 possibilities:

[1] you use (fill in the blank) and you pay for it voluntarily.

An example of this is any free market interaction that you participate in.

[2] you use (fill in the blank) and you pay for it involuntarily.

An example of this is any government service that you use (e.g. police, fire, etc) and pay for via taxes.

[3] you use (fill in the blank), you don't pay for it, voluntarily.

An example of this is anything you steal.

[4] you use (fill in the blank), you don't pay for it, involuntarily.

We can't identify an example where you involuntary don't pay for something.

[5] you don't use (fill in the blank) and you pay for it voluntarily.

An example of this is a gift or donation.

[6] you don't use (fill in the blank) and you pay for it involuntarily.

An example of this is any government service that you don't use (i.e. a golf course that you never use, a swimming pool that you never use, etc) and pay for via taxes.

[7] you don't use (fill in the blank), you don't pay for it, voluntarily.

An example of this is any free market interaction that you don't participate in.

[8] you don't use (fill in the blank), you don't pay for it, involuntarily.

We can't identify an example where you involuntary don't pay for something.

To summarize:

[1] is choice.

[2] is coercion.

[3] is coercion.

[4] never happens.

[5] is choice.

[6] is coercion.

[7] is choice.

[8] never happens.

If you agree that choice is better than coercion, then your only possibilities are [1], [5], and [7].

We can rephrase [1] as “pay for what you use”.

We can rephrase [7] as “don't pay for what you don't use”.

We can rephrase [5] as “you are always free to choose to give anything you own to anyone you want”.

The philosophy of “pay for what you use, don't pay for what you don't use” is choice, and is the basis of a free society comprised of voluntary interactions.

The opposite philosophy of “pay for what you don't use, don't pay for what you use” is coercion. 

Please see the FAQ "What are the two kinds of interaction?".

Please see the FAQ "Why is choice better than coercion?".

Please see the FAQ "Who pays for what?".

Let's compare the public sector entity (government) with a private sector entity (individual or business).

The government generates income via involuntary interactions (e.g. taxes), which is coercion.

A private sector entity generates income via voluntary interactions, which is choice.

The government is a monopoly, you are forced to interact with it, which is coercion.

There are many private sector entities that you can choose to interact with, which is choice.

If the government wants more income, it raises your taxes, which is coercion.

If a private sector entity wants more income, it must offer more or better goods and services, which is choice.

If you disapprove of how the government spends its money, there's nothing you can do, which is coercion.

If you disapprove of how a private sector entity spends its money, you can choose to not interact with it again, which is choice.

The government treats you as a pocket to be picked, which is coercion.

A private sector entity treats you as a "customer", who can choose to spend your money elsewhere, so they must "earn" your money by giving you value in exchange, which is choice.

In short, everything about the government is about coercion,

and everything about the private sector is about  choice.

Please see the FAQ "Why is the private sector better than the public sector?".

Suppose you want to increase the number of opportunities to listen to free music performances.

Alternative # 1 is to create a Music Board as a new branch within City Hall.

City Hall appoints members of the Music Board.

You have no input into that.

The Music Board chooses which kinds of music will be performed.

You have no input into that.

The Music Board chooses which musicians will be engaged.

You have no input into that.

You can try to make suggestions to the Music Board, but the Music Board has no incentive to listen to your input.

The Music Board has no incentive to spend its money wisely, because it is spending Other Peoples' Money (OPM) (i.e. the taxpayers's money).

The Music Board has to compete with all other branches of City Hall to get its funding. It will likely get less than it asks for, and the budgeting process is highly politicized.

The budget has increased, so City Hall has to increase your taxes, in order to pay for the Music Board.

How does this affect you?

You might not like City Hall's choices of members of the Music Board.

You might not like the Music Board's choices of kinds of music.

You might not like the Music Board's choices of musicians.

You definitely don't like that your taxes increase.

The net result is that you're being coerced to pay (taxes are coercive), you're being coerced to pay more than you want to pay, you're being coerced to pay for things that you haven't chosen, you're being coerced to pay for things that you don't want, and you're being coerced to pay for things that you don't use.

That's a lot of coercion.

You don't like being coerced.

Alternative # 2 is to create a private sector non-profit (i.e. a 501(c)(3)) organization.

Let's call it the Madison Music Foundation (MMF).

The MMF is funded by donations from the private sector (i.e. individuals and businesses, not by City Hall).

All donations are voluntary.

All donations are tax-deductible.

You can choose whether or not to donate to the MMF.

You can choose how much to donate to the MMF.

All non-profits have a Board of Directors.

You can choose to join the Board of Directors.

The MMF chooses which kinds of music will be performed.

The MMF chooses which musicians will be engaged.

You can choose to make suggestions to the MMF.

The MMF has a strong incentive to spend its money wisely, because if it doesn't, then donations will decrease.

The MMF has a strong incentive to listen to your input, because if it doesn't listen to its donors, then donations will decrease.

The MMF does not have to compete with anyone or anything else to get its funding. It will get exactly as much as its donors choose to give it. The funding process is not politicized.

How does this affect you?

You like that your taxes did not increase.

The net result is that you can choose whether or not to donate, you can choose how much to donate, you can choose to pay for things that you want and for things that you use (i.e. only the performances that you choose to attend), and your donations are tax-deductible.

That's a lot of choices.

You like having lots of choices.

Choice is better than coercion, so a private sector non-profit organization is better than City Hall.

By the way, there is already a private sector non-profit organization that provides many opportunities to listen to free music performances – it is called the Madison Performing Arts Foundation.

You can choose to donate to it here.

How much is "enough"?

"Enough" for what?

"Enough" for whom?

Who decides how much is "enough"?

Please see the page Parks and Recreations.

Let's talk about Parks and Recreation (P&R).

Here's the current situation:

City Hall decides how much is "enough" to spend on P&R.

There's no real limit on how much City Hall can decide to spend.

There's no "right number" or "magic number".

Politicians have a vested interest in spending more.

City Hall raises its budget to include that amount.

City Hall raises your taxes to include that amount.

You have no say in any of this.

Here's what we propose:

You decide how much is "enough" for you to spend on Madison Parks and Recreations Inc (MPRI).

City Hall has no say in any of this.

MPRI then decides how to spend the money you donate.

MPRI cannot spend more than you donate to it.

If this means that there are fewer or smaller parks and recreation in the future than there are now,

then it means that the donors choose to have fewer or smaller parks and recreation,

and City Hall should respect the voluntary choices of the individuals, voters, and taxpayers.

The question of "enough" is the wrong question.

The right question is, "Who decides how much you pay for (fill in the blank) - City Hall or you?".

Please see the FAQ "Why is the private sector better than the public sector?".

Suppose you want to have curbside pickup of your trash, recycling, compost, limbs and branches, and furniture.

Alternative # 1 is to create a Street Department as a new branch within City Hall.

The Street Department chooses which stuff they will pick up.

You have no input into that.

The Street Department chooses which days they will pick up.

You have no input into that.

The Street Department chooses which times they will pick up.

You have no input into that.

The Street Department chooses which containers they will pick up.

You have no input into that.

You can try to make suggestions to the Street Department, but the Street Department has no incentive to listen to your input.

The Street Department has no incentive to spend its money wisely, because it is spending Other Peoples' Money (OPM) (i.e. the taxpayers's money).

The Street Department has to compete with all other branches of City Hall to get its funding. It will likely get less than it asks for, and the budgeting process is highly politicized.

The budget has increased, so City Hall has to increase your taxes, in order to pay for the Street Department.

How does this affect you?

You might not like the Street Department's choices of which stuff they will pick up.

You might not like the Street Department's choices of which days they will pick up.

You might not like the Street Department's choices of which times they will pick up.

You might not like the Street Department's choices of which containers they will pick up.

You might not like that you don't know what it costs, because it is virtually impossible to dig that amount out of the city's budget.

You definitely don't like that your taxes increase.

The net result is that you're being coerced to pay (taxes are coercive), you're being coerced to pay more than you want to pay, and you're being coerced to put up with the curbside pickup that City Hall offers you.

That's a lot of coercion.

You don't like being coerced.

Alternative # 2 is to create a private sector for-profit business.

Let's call it the Madison Street Company (MSC).

There are several similar companies in this area.

All of them must compete for your business.

They compete by offering you better service, lower price, or both.

Better service might include:

your choice of which stuff they will pick up;

your choice of which days they will pick up;

your choice of which times they will pick up;

your choice of which containers they will pick up.

All of them have a strong incentive to spend their money wisely, because they are in business to make a profit for their shareholders, and if they don't make a profit, their shareholders will sell their shares, which will lower the share price.

How does this affect you?

You like that your taxes did not increase.

The net result is that you can choose which company, and you can choose the service and the price.

That's a lot of choices.

You like having lots of choices.

Choice is better than coercion, so a private sector for-profit business is better than City Hall.

By the way, there are already private sector for-profit businesses that would be happy to compete to offer you curbside pickup, but you'd have to pay them, and most people don't want to pay both [1] property taxes to City Hall for curbside pickup and [2] a private sector for-profit business.

Suppose there is one individual who owns a piece of private property.

Let's call him Alpha.

Alpha has the right to decide whatever he wants about the property.

Suppose there are two individuals who jointly own a piece of private property.

Let's call them Alpha and Beta.

Alpha no longer has the right to decide whatever he wants about the property, because Beta also has that right.

If Alpha and Beta want to make compatible decisions, then there is no problem.

What if Alpha and Beta want to make incompatible decisions?

Either Alpha coerces Beta (Alpha wins, Beta loses), or Beta coerces Alpha (Beta wins, Alpha loses), or they negotiate and arrive at a compromise (Alpha will win some and lose some, Beta will win some and lose some).

In the absence of coercion, on average Alpha will win 1/2 of the time and lose 1/2 of the time, and Beta will win 1/2 of the time and lose 1/2 of the time.

Suppose there are three individuals who jointly own a piece of private property.

On average, each will win 1/3 of the time and lose 2/3 of the time.

Suppose there are four individuals who jointly own a piece of private property.

On average, each will win 1/4 of the time and lose 3/4 of the time.

Do you see the trend?

The more owners there are, the more negotiations and compromises there must be.

The more owners there are, the more time it takes.

The more owners there are, the less each one wins, and the more each one loses.

Now consider the City of Madison, with approximately 12,000 residents, owning a piece of public property.

No decision will be made by all 12,000 residents.

No vote will be held for all 12,000 residents.

Decisions will be made by committees in City Hall.

You will have no say in the process.

Your elected representatives, and appointed committee members, will have all the say.

You can try to influence committee members:

you can speak at committee meetings (if City Hall permits you);

you can telephone or email committee members;

you can put up signs on your property;

you can post on social media;

you can attend a protest.

Sadly, committee members can ignore you.

Consider the number of meetings there must be.

Consider the number of negotiations and compromises there must be.

Consider how few winners there will be.

Consider how many losers there will be.

Consider the time it must take.

Oscar Wilde said, “The trouble with socialism is that it takes up too many evenings.”

I think he had City Hall meetings in mind when he said that. :-)

Purely from the perspective of efficiency, private property will always be better than public property, because there will be more winners, fewer losers, less negotiations, less compromises, and less time wasted.

Please read the FAQ “Why is choice better than coercion?”.

Please read the FAQ “Who should pay for what?”.

Please read the FAQ “What is the proper role of government in a free society?”.

For the purpose of this discussion, let's restrict ourselves to talking about spending money on things like public parks, public swimming pools, public golf courses, public art, etc. and not things related to “securing your unalienable rights”, e.g. police.

It is common for governments to hold votes on questions such as, “Should we spend (fill in the blank) dollars of our money on public (fill in the blank)?”.

In a vote, you have one ballot.

If the majority votes with you, you “win”, and you coerce the minority.

If the majority votes against you, you “lose”, and the majority coerces you.

Voting inevitably leads to winners and losers.

Voting inevitably leads to coercion.

Let's return to the original question: “Should we spend (fill in the blank) dollars of our money on public (fill in the blank)?”.

Exactly what is “our money”?

It is the sum of the taxes that the government took from you and all other taxpayers.

It came from coercion.

“There is no such thing as public money, there is only taxpayers’ money.”

-- Margaret Thatcher

After the government taxed you, that money was “our” money, “public” money.

The government didn't “earn” the money.

You have no control over how the government spends (what was) your money.

Either the government will decide how to spend “our” money, or it will hold a vote on how to spend “our” money.

If the government decides how to spend the money the government took from you, it is coercion.

If a vote decides how to spend the money the government took from you, it is coercion.

Taxing is the wrong solution. It is coercion.

Voting is the wrong solution. It is coercion.

After the government taxed you, it was coercion.

Before the government taxed you, that money was your money, which you earned, which you owned, in your pocket. You had the right to spend it the way you chose.

Before the government taxed you, it was choice.

“Every family should have the right to spend their money, after tax, as they wish, and not as the government dictates. Let us extend choice, extend the will to choose and the chance to choose.“

-- Margaret Thatcher

You can choose to spend your money on parks, swimming pools, golf courses, art, etc.

You can choose how much of your money to spend on parks, swimming pools, golf courses, art, etc.

You have total control over how you spend your money.

Choice is better than taxation.

Choice is better than voting.

Pay for what you use.

Don't pay for what you don't use.

You are always free to choose to give as much as you want to anything you want (e.g. public parks, public swimming pools, public golf courses, public art, etc.). 

Let's review the proper reasons for, and purposes of, government.

First approach:

Please see the FAQ "What are the two kinds of interaction?".

Please see the FAQ "Why is choice better than coercion?".

If 100% of your interactions were voluntary,

and your life was 100% composed of your choices,

and no other individual forced or coerced you to do anything you didn't want to do,

then there would be little or no need for government.

Individuals need government to protect them from being forced or coerced by others.

Second approach:

Please see Milton Friedman's lecture  "The Role of Government in a Free Society" here.

The Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal,

that they are endowed ... with certain unalienable Rights,

that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".

You also have the unalienable right to own property.

Therefore, the only reason for, and purpose of, government is to "secure these rights".

The government produces the service of securing these rights.

That service comprises:

the military;

the police;

the courts.

Third approach:

The government plays the role of a referee in a game.

The referee doesn't decide who wins and who loses.

The referee enforces the rules.

When a player breaks a rule, the referee imposes a penalty on that player.

It is not the government's job to "level the playing field".

It is not the government's job to "make life fair".

It is not the government's job to give you (fill in the blank).

It is not the government's job to give you anything.

It is not the government's job to take from others (or everyone) in order to give to you.

The government does not produce anything.

Only individuals and businesses in the private sector produce things.

In order for the government to give you something, the government has to take that something from the individual or business who produced it.

"In order to spend somebody else's money, you first have to take it away from them."

-- Milton Friedman

The government has to "rob Peter to pay Paul".

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."

-- George Bernard Shaw

Recall that the only reason for, and purpose of, government is to "secure these rights".

The government produces the service of securing these rights.

That service comprises:

the military (part of the federal government );

the police   (part of the state, and city governments);

the courts   (part of the federal, state, and city governments).

You do use that service, so it is moral, ethical, fair, just, right, and proper that you pay for that service.

I once saw a sign in a business that said, "Payment is expected when services are rendered."

Just as it would be wrong for you to walk into a business, take something for sale, and leave without paying for it,

it would be wrong for you to move into a jurisdiction (federal, state, city), use the services that it provides, and not pay for them.

The government must secure the rights of every citizen in the same way and to the same extent.

The Equal Protection Clause is located at the end of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution:

"No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The military secures the rights of every citizen the same way and to the same extent;

the police   secures the rights of every citizen the same way and to the same extent;

the courts   secure  the rights of every citizen the same way and to the same extent.

Just as a supermarket charges everyone the same price for the same thing,

a jurisdiction charges everyone in it the same price for the same services.

One beneficial consequence of this is that individuals can more easily budget their money to make sure they can pay the service fee,

because they know the service fee in advance.

It doesn't depend on your income, which can vary.

It doesn't depend on the value of your house, which can vary.

It doesn't depend on how much you spend, which can vary.

Just as you pay your rent or mortgage every month,

and you pay your insurance bill every month,

and you pay your phone bill every month,

and you pay your utility bill every month,

you would pay your service fee every month.

Income tax is not the proper way to fund the proper role of government.

Two individuals walk into a supermarket.

One has a higher income, one has a lower income.

They purchase identical heads of lettuce.

Who pays more?

They pay the same amount for the same thing.

The supermarket does not set the price based on your income.

Sales tax is not the proper way to fund the proper role of government.

Two individuals walk into a supermarket.

One buys more expensive things, one buys less expensive things.

They purchase identical heads of lettuce.

Who pays more?

They pay the same amount for the same thing.

The supermarket does not set the price based on how much you spend.

Property tax is not the proper way to fund the proper role of government.

Two individuals walk into a supermarket.

One has a more expensive house, one has a less expensive house.

They purchase identical heads of lettuce.

Who pays more?

They pay the same amount for the same thing.

The supermarket does not set the price based on the value of your house.

Tax is not the proper way to fund the proper role of government.

The government coerces you to pay taxes.

The government coerces you to pay the amount of taxes that the government decides.

Cancer researchers discovered that an effective way to reduce tumors (i.e. uncontrolled growths) is to decrease their blood supply.

An effective way to reduce the uncontrolled growth of government spending is to decrease its money supply, i.e. its tax revenues.

I highly recommend the book "Cutting Back City Hall" by Robert Poole (https://www.amazon.com/Cutting-Back-City-Robert-Poole/dp/0876632665).

It has hundreds of good ideas on how to reduce the size and cost of government.

I will do everything I can to implement as many of those good ideas as I can.

Suppose you see a store with a sign in its window that says, "We offer the product (i.e. good or service) of (fill in the blank), for the price of $(fill in the blank)."

You enter the store.

You take the product.

You leave the store without paying.

Is it moral, ethical, just, fair, or right that you fail to pay for the product that you took?

No.

What is it called when you take something without paying for it?

Theft.

Theft is a crime.

An individual who commits the crime of theft is caught and punished.

Similarly, if you take the service of protection of your individual rights without paying for it,

you have committed theft, and you will be caught and punished.

Not because you "didn't pay the tax", but because you "took something without paying for it".

On Facebook, someone commented about Bob Courtney and his pushing for the Madison Coal lot apartment building:

"His insistence makes no sense, unless... A little honesty and communication would go a long way to help our community heal. A good leader motivates and convinces. They don't dictate. We as people never outgrow the want to have a choice in our lives and about things that personally impact us."

Someone replied:

"Bob Courtney is not my “leader”. I am not a sheep; I am not a follower; I don’t need a “leader”. Bob is a civil servant who makes a very good living from our taxes. He owes us better."

In general:

A sheep may need a shepherd, but sheep are herd animals;

they are not individually independent.

Humans are not sheep.

Humans are not herd animals.

Humans are individually independent.

Some humans do not want to think for themselves.

They want to have someone else think for them.

They think of that someone as their "leader".

They "follow" that "leader".

I believe that no one else can, or should, claim that "they know what's best for me".

Only I know what's best for me.

I think for myself.

No one else thinks for me.

I do not "follow" anyone else.

No one else is my "leader".

Anyone who claims to be, is (at best) mistaken and (at worst) dangerous to me.

So, in conclusion, your elected officials are not, and should not be, your "leaders".

Suppose you vote for a candidate named Leslie, and Leslie wins the election.
When it comes time for Leslie to vote, how does Leslie decide which way to vote?
Leslie could think, "I'm supposed to represent the voters who voted for me, so I will poll them to see how they want me to vote. I will vote the way the majority wants me to vote."
But if Leslie does nothing more than vote the way the majority votes, then Leslie is unnecessary. The same outcome would occur with or without Leslie. The majority vote wins. Leslie adds no value to the process, but does impose a cost (salary, office expenses, etc). Leslie cannot be said to "represent" you.
Leslie could think, "The voters voted for me to think for myself and do what I think is best."
But what if what Leslie thinks is best, is not what you think is best? Leslie votes for what Leslie wants, but Leslie doesn't vote for what you want. Leslie cannot be said to "represent" you.
If your representatives do not truly "represent" you, then why have them?

If your representatives do not truly "represent" you, then why give them your power and your money?

What is the situation today with schools?

Here's what that looks like:

=====

There is a School Board.

Its members are determined by elections.

You can run as a candidate.

Google "how to run for madison indiana School Board":

+++++

To run for the Madison Consolidated Schools Board, you must be a resident of the school corporation for at least one year. File a Petition of Nomination (CAN-34) with 10 registered voter signatures and a Statement of Economic Interests (CAN-12) with the Jefferson County Voter Registration Office between May 19, 2026, and noon on June 18, 2026. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Specific rules and resources apply to the election and candidacy:

Filing Location: Submit all required forms in person at the Jefferson County Clerk’s Office (300 East Main Street, Suite 203, Madison, IN 47250).

No Filing Fee: There is no cost to file as a candidate, but you may incur costs if you purchase campaign materials (e.g., yard signs).

Write-in Candidates: If you miss the primary deadline, a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate (CAN-26) must be filed between August 5, 2026, and noon on August 21, 2026.

Partisan Requirements: Indiana school board elections include partisan affiliations. To claim a major political party affiliation, you must have voted in that party's last two primary elections, or get official approval from the county party chair.

Resources: You can review the 2026 Indiana Candidate Guide for comprehensive election laws, or consult the Local School Board in Madison Consolidated Schools, Indiana page to learn more about the specific district requirements. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

+++++

If you don't like any of the members of the School Board, you cannot remove them.

You have no choice.

There is one "public" School.

It is owned by the government.

The School Board decides which subjects are offered by the School.

If you want a subject that the School doesn't carry, you could try to influence the School Board, but they have no incentive to listen to you.

You have no choice.

The Teachers at the School are members of the Teachers Union.

The Teachers at the School are employees of the government.

The School Board decides who to employ.

If you don't like any of the Teachers, you cannot fire them.

You have no choice.

The School is paid for by your property taxes.

The subjects in the School are available for free.

Customers have an incentive to take as many subjects as possible, more than they need, because it is "free" to them.

If you don't like the School that you pay for via your property taxes, then you are forced to pay for another School somewhere else.

The School Board decides how much of each subject to offer.

If the School Board offers too much of a subject, there is an excess, wasting money.

If the School Board offers too little of a subject, there is a shortage.

The School has no incentive to economize, or to avoid or prevent waste.

The School will cost more and more to operate each year.

Your property taxes will go up each year.

You have no choice.

=====

What if food stores were more like schools?

Re-read the above, but make the following substitutions:

"School Board" ==> "Food Board"

"School" ==> "Food Store"

"Teacher" ==> "Food Worker"

"subject" ==> "food item"

Here's what that looks like:

=====

There is a Food Board.

Its members are determined by elections.

You can run as a candidate.

Google "how to run for madison indiana Food Board":

+++++

To run for the Madison Food Board, you must be a resident of the Food corporation for at least one year. File a Petition of Nomination (CAN-34) with 10 registered voter signatures and a Statement of Economic Interests (CAN-12) with the Jefferson County Voter Registration Office between May 19, 2026, and noon on June 18, 2026. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Specific rules and resources apply to the election and candidacy:

Filing Location: Submit all required forms in person at the Jefferson County Clerk’s Office (300 East Main Street, Suite 203, Madison, IN 47250).

No Filing Fee: There is no cost to file as a candidate, but you may incur costs if you purchase campaign materials (e.g., yard signs).

Write-in Candidates: If you miss the primary deadline, a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate (CAN-26) must be filed between August 5, 2026, and noon on August 21, 2026.

Partisan Requirements: Indiana Food Board elections include partisan affiliations. To claim a major political party affiliation, you must have voted in that party's last two primary elections, or get official approval from the county party chair.

Resources: You can review the 2026 Indiana Candidate Guide for comprehensive election laws, or consult the Local Food Board in Madison Consolidated Food Stores, Indiana page to learn more about the specific district requirements. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

+++++

If you don't like any of the members of the Food Board, you cannot remove them.

You have no choice.

There is one "public" Food Store.

It is owned by the government.

The Food Board decides which food items are offered by the Food Store.

If you want a food item that the Food Store doesn't carry, you could try to influence the Food Board, but they have no incentive to listen to you.

You have no choice.

The Food Workers at the Food Store are members of the Food Workers Union.

The Food Workers at the Food Store are employees of the government.

The Food Board decides who to employ.

If you don't like any of the Food Workers, you cannot fire them.

You have no choice.

The Food Store is paid for by your property taxes.

The food items in the Food Store are available for free.

Customers have an incentive to take as many food items as possible, more than they need, because it is "free" to them.

If you don't like the Food Store that you pay for via your property taxes, then you are forced to pay for another Food Store somewhere else.

The Food Board decides how much of each food item to offer.

If the Food Board offers too much of a food item, there is an excess, wasting money.

If the Food Board offers too little of a food item, there is a shortage.

The Food Store has no incentive to economize, or to avoid or prevent waste.

The Food Store will cost more and more to operate each year.

Your property taxes will go up each year.

You have no choice.

=====

Do you really want food stores to be more like schools?

Absolutely not!

What is the situation today with food stores?

Here's what that looks like:

=====

There are many food stores.

Every food store chooses which food items to sell.

Every food store chooses which amounts of each food item to sell.

Every food store chooses the price of each food item.

You choose which food stores to buy from.

You choose which food items to buy.

You choose which amounts of each food item to buy.

=====

What if schools were more like food stores?

Re-read the above, but make the following substitutions:

"food store" ==> "school"

"food item" ==> "subject"

Here's what that looks like:

=====

There are many schools.

Every school chooses which subjects to sell.

Every school chooses which amounts of each subject to sell.

Every school chooses the price of each subject.

You choose which schools to buy from.

You choose which subjects to buy.

You choose which amounts of each subject to buy.

=====

There are no Boards.

There are no Board members.

There are no Board candidates.

There are no Board elections.

There is no connection between schools and property taxes.

There is no government involvement.

There is no coercion.

There is only choice for both buyers and sellers.

If you don't like the subjects at School A, you can always choose School B.

If you don't like the prices at School C, you can always choose School D.

It is now perfectly clear that just as a food store is a place to buy and sell food items, a school is a place to buy and sell subjects.

Do you really want schools to be more like food stores?

Absolutely!

Please see the FAQ “What are the two kinds of interaction?”.

Please see the FAQ “Why is choice better than coercion?”.

Suppose you have an idea for a new product.

You guess that consumers will want to buy it.

You take the risk of making the new product.

You are now a producer.

What if consumers do buy your new product?

You will have revenue.

You will have a profit.

Profit is a sign that consumers want your new product.

Profit is a sign that consumers are willing to pay the price you charged.

Profit is a sign that you guessed correctly.

Profit is a sign that you took a good risk.

What if consumers don't buy your new product?

You won't have revenue.

You won't have a profit.

You will have a loss.

Loss is a sign that consumers do not want your new product.

Loss is a sign that consumers are not willing to pay the price you charged.

Loss is a sign that you guessed incorrectly.

Loss is a sign that you took a bad risk.

Loss is a sign that the resources you used, to make the new product, would have been better spent on making something else.

The profit and loss system works really well in the free market, also known as the private sector, where all interactions between participants are voluntary.

In a voluntary interaction, both participants choose to participate.

Producers choose to produce.

Consumers choose to consume.

Each participant chooses to participate because he expects to be better off after the interaction than before.

Every voluntary interaction is "win-win".

Not all interactions are voluntary.

Some are involuntary interactions.

In an involuntary interaction, one participant chooses to not participate, but is forced or coerced by the other to participate.

Every involuntary interaction is "win-lose".

One example of involuntary interaction is taxes.

Money starts off as "your" money.

Your worked for your money.

You own your money.

You decide how to spend your money.

The government decides how much taxes you will pay.

The government coerces you to pay taxes.

The money is now "our" money.

The government decides how to spend "our" money.

No one spends other people's money as wisely or as efficiently as you spend your own money.

Suppose you're a politician.

Suppose your name is Bob Courtney.

Suppose you want something that no producer is willing to produce, because producers know they would have a loss.

What do you do?

Step 1: You label what you want "worthwhile".

One Madison Community Revitalization Plan

https://www.madison-in.gov/egov/documents/1640181687_57416.pdf

page 23:

"we believe we can find and leverage the local funds, public/private partnerships and grant funds to make any worthwhile project successful."

The reality is that what is "worthwhile" to you is not "worthwhile" to producers, consumers, and taxpayers.

Step 2: You label the loss a "gap".

One Madison Comprehensive Plan

Adopted September 20, 2016

https://s3.amazonaws.com/online.anyflip.com/bdux/lusa/mobile/index.html

p. 167:

"These TIF funds would allow assist the private developer in closing the financial gap and enhance project feasibility."

p. 177:

"Due to the challenges and constraints, a private developer may be interested in the site, but success typically requires partnerships and financing support. The City of Madison, through the Redevelopment Commission or similar entity, will likely need to assist any future developers to close the financial gap presented when developing difficult sites throughout the city but especially downtown."

Comprehensive Housing Strategy Report

https://www.madison-in.gov/egov/documents/1749657075_17341.pdf

p. 5:

"Leverage existing state programs, such as the state bond bank loan program and residential TIF, to help fill the gaps in development costs."

p. 17:

"Financial Structuring: Develop a robust financial plan, securing grants, subsidies, and private investments to bridge funding gaps."

p. 35:

"Formalize relationships with developers, employers, financial institutions, and local government through Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs). Prioritize partnerships that can help close financing gaps and support workforce housing."

The reality is that a "gap" (i.e. loss) is a sign that what you want should not be produced, because consumers don't want it.

Step 3: You claim that the government should "assist" or "incentivize" or "catalyze" or "promote" private sector producers to make what you want.

One Madison Comprehensive Plan

Adopted September 20, 2016

https://s3.amazonaws.com/online.anyflip.com/bdux/lusa/mobile/index.html

p. 141:

"It is anticipated that funds generated by a potential expansion of the TIF might be used to redevelop

sites throughout the city that have remained abandoned or underutilized for years including the 22 acres at Clifty Drive and Michigan Road. Without future expansion of the existing TIF district or creation of a new TIF district, it is doubtful private investors will be able to assume the risk to develop large scale, typically older projects. These types of projects have the capability to catalyze new development but need help with the all important first step."

p. 154:

"The term 'public-private partnership' (PPP) traditionally refers to projects that involve the use of public resources or financing capabilities to promote local private economic development. In those arrangements, the public entity typically provides some combination of tax incentives,

public land, or other assets, infrastructure investments or financing methods. The private entity makes capital investments, commits to providing jobs, contributes development expertise, and assumes financial risk."

p. 160:

"To incentivize private investment and redevelopment, the City could take the first step with ... improvements that set the tone and create a 'place'. ... The suggested investments by the City will pay off in increased interest by the private sector."

p. 169:

"This also will positively impact businesses and is an example of a public investment catalyzing private investment."

p. 178:

"it is well worth the extra effort on behalf of the City and the Madison community as a whole to financially assist the right private developer with the right vision for an adaptive ... reuse"

Comprehensive Housing Strategy Report

https://www.madison-in.gov/egov/documents/1749657075_17341.pdf

p. 23:

"Madison can explore inclusionary zoning or offer tax abatements, density bonuses, or other incentives to encourage mixed-income developments. This could encourage the private sector to deliver both higher-end and affordable units."

The reality is that it is not the government's job to "incentivize" or "catalyze" or "promote" anyone to do anything.

The reality is that producers do not need an "incentive" to make a profit - the profit is the incentive.

Step 4: You label a mixture of coercion and choice a "partnership".

One Madison Comprehensive Plan

Adopted September 20, 2016

https://s3.amazonaws.com/online.anyflip.com/bdux/lusa/mobile/index.html

p. 154:

"The term 'public-private partnership' (PPP) traditionally refers to projects that involve the use of public resources or financing capabilities to promote local private economic development. In those arrangements, the public entity typically provides some combination of tax incentives, public land, or other assets, infrastructure investments or financing methods. The private entity makes capital investments, commits to providing jobs, contributes development expertise, and assumes financial risk."

The reality is that a "partnership" is an association of participants who choose to join it.

The reality is that no one (e.g. taxpayers) can be coerced to join a "partnership".

Step 5: You claim that the private sector will benefit if you get what you want.

One Madison Comprehensive Plan

Adopted September 20, 2016

https://s3.amazonaws.com/online.anyflip.com/bdux/lusa/mobile/index.html

p. 143:

"This is because the income generated by private investment from the project would not cover all of the eventual construction costs to make it financially feasible for redevelopment. Therefore, TIF funding is critical to redevelopment and increasing the competitive position of Madison as a high-quality place to live"

p. 160:

"To incentivize private investment and redevelopment, the City could take the first step with ... improvements that set the tone and create a 'place'. ... The suggested investments by the City will pay off in increased interest by the private sector."

p. 169:

"This also will positively impact businesses and is an example of a public investment catalyzing private investment."

Comprehensive Housing Strategy Report

https://www.madison-in.gov/egov/documents/1749657075_17341.pdf

p. 16:

"Public - Private Partnerships (PPP): Collaborate with local developers to create affordable units using Capital Stacking techniques (grants, tax credits, private investment)."

p. 23:

"Madison can explore inclusionary zoning or offer tax abatements, density bonuses, or other incentives to encourage mixed-income developments. This could encourage the private sector to deliver both higher-end and affordable units."

p. 35:

"Formalize relationships with developers, employers, financial institutions, and local government through Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs). Prioritize partnerships that can help close financing gaps and support workforce housing."

The reality is that you will benefit, because you will claim credit for it.

The reality is that people will vote for you, because they (mistakenly) think that you created something.

Everyone who gets something for nothing, thinks it is wonderful, and wants even more.

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."

-- George Bernard Shaw

A government that [takes from everyone] to [give to a few] can always depend on the support of [the few].

In summary, "public-private partnerships" are a bad idea because:

taxpayers are not choosing to participate, the government is coercing them to participate;

the government spends the resulting money on things that the taxpayers and consumers do not want;

everyone is taxed in order to benefit a few.

 What determines the price of housing (either rental or ownership)?

The Law of Supply and Demand.

If demand goes up, and supply stays fixed, then the price will go up.

Madison is a desirable place to live, so people want to move here.

More people want to move here than want to leave here, so demand is going up.

If no more housing is built, then supply stays fixed, and the price will go up.

Madison housing prices have indeed gone up.

What if I want to move to a penthouse apartment overlooking Central Park in Manhattan, but I can't afford the price?

Does that mean Manhattan has a "housing crisis"?

No.

My inability to afford something does not mean there is a "crisis".

What if you want to move to Madison, but you can't afford the price?

Does that mean Madison has a "housing crisis"?

No.

Your inability to afford something does not mean there is a "crisis".

Why does Bob Courtney say there is a "housing crisis"?

Politicians like to say there is a "crisis".

It makes it sound like there is an emergency need for politicians to "do something" about it.

Politicians claim they will "fix" or "solve" the "crisis".

Politicians use the alleged "crisis" as the reason for taking more of your power, and more of your money.

Can politicians really "fix" or "solve" a "crisis"?

No.

"The assumption that spending more of taxpayers' money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse."

-- Thomas Sowell

"A government's solution to a problem is usually worse than the problem itself – and twice as expensive."

-- Milton Friedman

If a private sector developer calculated that they could make a profit building housing, then they would do that.

If no private sector developer is building housing, then it must be because no private sector developer expects to make a profit.

Many people say, "If no one else wants to do something, then the government should do it".

Specifically, "if no private sector developer wants to build housing, then the government should build housing".

In general, if no one wants to do something, then it probably shouldn't be done at all, especially not by the government.

Specifically, if there's no way to make a profit building housing, and the government builds housing, then the government will not make a profit.

The government will make a loss.

Guess who pays for the loss?

Taxpayers.

It's a common political strategy to tax everyone in order to spend money on a few people, in this case on people who seek housing.

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."

-- George Bernard Shaw

In summary:

There is no "housing crisis".

It is inappropriate for the government to gamble taxpayer money on building housing.

It is not the government's job to provide housing.