Maggie's Farm

Is it funny that people are amused by the fact the GOP Convention's theme is not directly related to the means utilized by the building they are in?

Only to the most obtuse observer. Primarily because almost every building for public use, today, has some degree of public money involved. Is it necessarily their fault they can't find a completely privately funded facility?

No. It's as if it's absurd for people like me, a Libertarian, to take public funds which are available for college education simply because I am opposed to providing said funds.

It's not absurd. In fact, it's completely logical and efficient. Why shouldn't I take funds if they are available? That's how things work, right? So what if I disagree with their provision? This isn't a morally offensive act, it's completely practical and necessary step.

However, if given the opportunity, I'd remove the availability of these funds, even if I'd taken advantage of them before, simply because there's no good reason to make them available. Just like I utilize publicly-funded facilities like a convention center, even though these facilities shouldn't be publicly funded. At this point, choices are limited.

You may say that because I took advantage of college funding, or a public facility, I am tacitly agreeing that it makes sense to have these provided publicly. That's actually quite laughable. If you take advantage of something that is privately funded, and you're a Marxist, is that tacit approval of Capitalism? I'm sure you can see the problem I've addressed.

You might say I have other options, I don't have to use college funding, or use a public facility - but you, a Marxist, have no choices. I disagree. I may have other choices, it's true, but so do you. You can join a collective and remove yourself from society as some people have (they usually don't work out too well, so I can understand why you wouldn't). Similarly, I could turn down the funding and find other ways to get the money.

The point I'm making is choice - I choose to not turn down the money. Why, if I'm opposed, would I not turn it down? Simple. Because it's there, and it's easy to get, and easy to service. But that doesn't mean making it available is justified. The free market is about choice, and I've made my choice to take the money. I don't care if people say I don't need it or I can find it elsewhere. I don't care if it causes a bubble. And it's essentially this response which is standard across all people, and it's this response which causes the student loan bubble or causes people to say "we need publicly funded buildings so you can make that choice."

Um, no. The choices may change if the public availability is not provided, that's all. It doesn't mean the public is 'better off' because they are available. I'd argue that I'm not better off because of the student loan availability, mainly because when the bubble pops, we're all going to be negatively effected.
I'd also argue that we're not better off having a publicly-funded convention center because if it's run profitably, then a private busines would be better off building and maintaining it. If it's not profitable, why do we have it?