Frequently, censorship is indirect, particularly in a highly interventionist system. As a government acquires increasing control over the allocation of scarce resources, it necessarily must control how those resources are allocated to the expression of ideas. Consequently, it must inevitably make decisions that implicitly determine which ideas gain expression. For instance, if most libraries, schools, and other public forums are government-owned, while private competition to these institutions is largely repressed through coercive taxation, then the government must necessarily undertake the ultimate responsibility of determining which books will be purchased and which ideas will be presented in schools and forums. No matter how wisely the librarians, teachers, and other government employees exercise this responsibility, their policies effectively and coercively repress the full expression of certain points of view. For instance, if certain religious beliefs or values are taught in the public schools, then they are in effect coercively imposed upon nonbelievers. If, on the other hand, such teachings are entirely excluded, then a totally secular world-view is in effect coercively imposed upon children from religious families who may find it offensive. Ultimately, this conflict cannot be resolved within an interventionist system without resorting to some form of censorship, because the very notion of a public-school monopoly is incompatible with the freedoms of speech, expression, and belief.