While I completely agree with James Siggens’ Dec. 28 Soundoff column about the consequences of Eyman initiatives, I’m afraid we don’t have any practical alternative to the trend they represent.

“Eyman wants…to convince the people of Washington that he is a good guy.” Most of us don’t seem to appreciate who exactly is a “person,” and who are the “people of Washington” Eyman would please. By law, organizations have many of the rights of individuals, including rights to own property and control what happens on it. Property includes the print and broadcast media that bring us our news and common cultural experience.

So in many ways, the “people of Washington” are not only you and I, but also AOL-Time-Warner, Royal Dutch Shell, Wal-Mart, Clear Channel broadcasting — a host of domestic and foreign businesses that manage property here.

The major owners overwhelmingly favor libertarian global capitalism, the use of government for nothing except security. They not only dominate the economy and political campaign support, they are also the only important sponsors of the media, which puts them in position to promote their interests constantly.

Hundreds of commentators express Eyman-like views to Washingtonians around the clock. Endless hours of entertainment portray an economic life consistent with those politics. Nobody has any right to go onto other peoples’ private property to argue differently. So when Tim Eyman offers a small-government initiative, he is in line with the only philosophy visible to the public as a whole.

Mr. Siggens made many excellent points that would have applied in earlier times. But today he is probably wrong. It is too late, there seems to be no logistical way to defend and support the form of governance that benefited so many of us in years past.

David Daye

Oak Harbor