 |
Re: On Assignment – La Selva Bridge Replacement
Author: OldPoleBurner
Date: 09-01-2014 - 14:45
OK, Your on.
"When did the government acquire "Rights"?" - It didn't! - It Can't!
But when lawless politicians keep getting re-elected, we shouldn't be too surprised when the "Powers" of government get sorely abused, usurping citizens rights to decide most things for themselves.
Yes Drew is raising a legitimate question. But everybody's opinion on what has priority for the available dollars may vary. However, equating Drew's point of view to the right wing is patently ridiculous. He is an avowed anarchist pure and simple, as he despises virtually all "government activity", and even its very existence, as he says.
Antipathy towards a democratic government typically originates in annoyance with not wanting to be told what to do, and what not to do; and in having their own money taxed away so that someone else gets to decide how it is spent, rather than they themselves deciding that. Now it seems to me that people of all sorts of political persuasions do get annoyed that way. They want to decide for themselves how their own money is spent. And that is what it comes down to in the end. Who gets to spend it - and who gets to decide what you yourselves do.
Anarchism can afflict people of all political persuasions, but it does not have to. Unfortunately, another affliction even more common to partisans of all stripes, is a severe myopia that prevents them from thinking things all the way through, to a consistent and reasonable conclusion.
For example, a so-called conservative might believe that government spending (and resulting taxation) should be based upon actual need for an agency of government to do the spending, only because of the impracticality of a private party doing that same spending instead. Roads and highways fit that well. In my mind so does any sort of infrastructure requiring a physical right of way (so long as the public gets direct tangible benefit in some way from that r.o.w.). There's no anarchy there!
But myopia might cause a conservative believing that to not notice that providing for a given need, such as passenger rail service, is totally impractical at the private level, They may also not notice that all known alternatives to passenger rail are also impractical, thus resulting in choked cities and towns. Or they might not be so myopic and will support it (Utah county in Utah (the most conservative county in the nation) comes to mind!
He/she might also believe that a free market can govern itself (it is possible), but myopically fail to notice that very few of the markets that make up the economy are actually free; being constrained not by regulation, but only by a severe unbalance of economic power between buyers and sellers. That actually is the norm! The entire railroad industry is that way; as is the labor market, chronically.
Whereas, most so-called liberals probably do not notice that virtually every resource in this world is very finite; that we cannot as a collective whole, ever eat more corn than we have actually produced. Also not noticed is that democratic government by its very nature is always going to be very inefficient and wasteful of those limited resources. Thus they fail to notice that private citizens making as many of the spending decisions themselves, as is practical, will in the end be the most efficient and serve the general welfare the best. Not to mention, also maximizing personal freedom as much as is practical.
Most of these concepts oppose each other; but as all are natural realities, all must be served at once. The extremist aligns himself to only one set of these realities, totally ignoring the other. The Centrist tries to find balance between conflicting goals - But it ain't easy.
To the question at hand:
Right of way preservation is vital to our future general welfare, even if we do not have the specific vision now, to see it's logical end. The question then becomes, Who can best do that, government, private enterprise, or individual citizens. It could be any of the above. But if a reasonable return on investment cannot be had fairly soon, that leaves private enterprise out; and there are few individual sugar daddies around with sufficient cash. That leaves the task mostly to government, if it is to be done at all. And it may not be, as resources are indeed finite, even to a government.
After looking at these pictures, it seems clear that a very real public hazard exists, that will be very costly to remedy, even by just taking down the bridge. Indeed, my own experience tells me that simply removing the bridge may well cost well over 50% of the cost of repair or replacement.
And that begs the question, what about the future? The right of way will not be preserved unless the track stays in semi-usable condition. Abandonment will be the default if not repaired to some level. And the economies of project scale being what they are; the additional money to repair or fully replace the bridge now, may be money well spent over the long term. Sort of like two birds with one and a half stones!
At least that way, an economic asset can be used now for its proposed limited uses, until that day comes when the need for a more intensive use shows on the horizon. Of course, it also begs the question, can we tax the citizens enough to do every desired r.o.w. preservation, as well as everything else we want. Possibly not, without eventually reaching the point of diminishing returns (another point of myopia by some, especially in California).
That needs to be faced too. Hopefully, the powers that be, have made a good decision. But there is much room for rational difference of opinion and debate, especially at the big picture level. What there is no room for is name calling and any labeling of those who disagree. Just present your own take on the issue - and leave at that.
"When did the government acquire "Rights"?" - It didn't! - It Can't!
But when lawless politicians keep getting re-elected, we shouldn't be too surprised when the "Powers" of government get sorely abused, usurping citizens rights to decide most things for themselves.
Yes Drew is raising a legitimate question. But everybody's opinion on what has priority for the available dollars may vary. However, equating Drew's point of view to the right wing is patently ridiculous. He is an avowed anarchist pure and simple, as he despises virtually all "government activity", and even its very existence, as he says.
Antipathy towards a democratic government typically originates in annoyance with not wanting to be told what to do, and what not to do; and in having their own money taxed away so that someone else gets to decide how it is spent, rather than they themselves deciding that. Now it seems to me that people of all sorts of political persuasions do get annoyed that way. They want to decide for themselves how their own money is spent. And that is what it comes down to in the end. Who gets to spend it - and who gets to decide what you yourselves do.
Anarchism can afflict people of all political persuasions, but it does not have to. Unfortunately, another affliction even more common to partisans of all stripes, is a severe myopia that prevents them from thinking things all the way through, to a consistent and reasonable conclusion.
For example, a so-called conservative might believe that government spending (and resulting taxation) should be based upon actual need for an agency of government to do the spending, only because of the impracticality of a private party doing that same spending instead. Roads and highways fit that well. In my mind so does any sort of infrastructure requiring a physical right of way (so long as the public gets direct tangible benefit in some way from that r.o.w.). There's no anarchy there!
But myopia might cause a conservative believing that to not notice that providing for a given need, such as passenger rail service, is totally impractical at the private level, They may also not notice that all known alternatives to passenger rail are also impractical, thus resulting in choked cities and towns. Or they might not be so myopic and will support it (Utah county in Utah (the most conservative county in the nation) comes to mind!
He/she might also believe that a free market can govern itself (it is possible), but myopically fail to notice that very few of the markets that make up the economy are actually free; being constrained not by regulation, but only by a severe unbalance of economic power between buyers and sellers. That actually is the norm! The entire railroad industry is that way; as is the labor market, chronically.
Whereas, most so-called liberals probably do not notice that virtually every resource in this world is very finite; that we cannot as a collective whole, ever eat more corn than we have actually produced. Also not noticed is that democratic government by its very nature is always going to be very inefficient and wasteful of those limited resources. Thus they fail to notice that private citizens making as many of the spending decisions themselves, as is practical, will in the end be the most efficient and serve the general welfare the best. Not to mention, also maximizing personal freedom as much as is practical.
Most of these concepts oppose each other; but as all are natural realities, all must be served at once. The extremist aligns himself to only one set of these realities, totally ignoring the other. The Centrist tries to find balance between conflicting goals - But it ain't easy.
To the question at hand:
Right of way preservation is vital to our future general welfare, even if we do not have the specific vision now, to see it's logical end. The question then becomes, Who can best do that, government, private enterprise, or individual citizens. It could be any of the above. But if a reasonable return on investment cannot be had fairly soon, that leaves private enterprise out; and there are few individual sugar daddies around with sufficient cash. That leaves the task mostly to government, if it is to be done at all. And it may not be, as resources are indeed finite, even to a government.
After looking at these pictures, it seems clear that a very real public hazard exists, that will be very costly to remedy, even by just taking down the bridge. Indeed, my own experience tells me that simply removing the bridge may well cost well over 50% of the cost of repair or replacement.
And that begs the question, what about the future? The right of way will not be preserved unless the track stays in semi-usable condition. Abandonment will be the default if not repaired to some level. And the economies of project scale being what they are; the additional money to repair or fully replace the bridge now, may be money well spent over the long term. Sort of like two birds with one and a half stones!
At least that way, an economic asset can be used now for its proposed limited uses, until that day comes when the need for a more intensive use shows on the horizon. Of course, it also begs the question, can we tax the citizens enough to do every desired r.o.w. preservation, as well as everything else we want. Possibly not, without eventually reaching the point of diminishing returns (another point of myopia by some, especially in California).
That needs to be faced too. Hopefully, the powers that be, have made a good decision. But there is much room for rational difference of opinion and debate, especially at the big picture level. What there is no room for is name calling and any labeling of those who disagree. Just present your own take on the issue - and leave at that.
