 |
Re: On Assignment – La Selva Bridge Replacement
Author: Alfa
Date: 09-01-2014 - 16:26
OldPoleBurner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK, Your on.
>
>
> "When did the government acquire "Rights"?" - It
> didn't! - It Can't!
Dunno where this comment came from but I'm guessing that government "rights" devolve to the Constitution. If the government, ie federal, didn't have "rights" there would be no standards whatsoever to keep some sort of stability in the day to day functioning of the country.
> 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.
I missed the part where your right to vote has been nullified. I know, lots of political groups want to limit that right, but as far as I know, you can still vote the goofs out.
>
>
> 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.
Yeah, he whines, yet he has no problem with using the 2nd Amendment, ie government, as a "right" to carry his AK-47 from Calif to where ever, despite State's Rights banning such items.
>
> 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.
Yep, and yet the people who want to control how their money is spent have no problem with using someone else's $'s to build a water treatment plant from which they will benefit. Where I live, the state is thinking of increasing the mileage of the Tollway system, to relieve the state of the financial burden. It ain't going well. Oddly enough, the less tax people don't want to pay for the highway services.
>
> 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!
Yep... "need". Should the taxpayers spend $'s so the farmers in the Imperial Valley can get water for their crops, or should the farmers take it upon themselves to move to a more equitable climate. From what I can tell, they don't grow anything I eat, yahooo Brazil, so why should I fund their agua?
>
> 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.
Indeed the free market works just fine. I grew up in the 50's in a solid industrial job based economy town. The jobs went to the "right to work" states and ultimately to China.
Now, while the nabobs do real fine, financially, I sit along side a UP mainline watching stak train after stak train carrying Chinese made goods to an east coast market that can't afford anything more up town.
The free market is working just fine, the UP is doing quite well shipping that one way traffic.
>
> 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.
Sorry you said Liberal, you started pigeon holing, you lost that point right there.
>
> 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.
But it ain't easy. It isn't solvable, this is the real world, not one of academics.
> 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.
Good question, last thing I want to do is lose my property rights to the government, just ask anyone along IDoT's Prairie Parkway, who lost the rights to their land 20+ years ago to a highway never built.
But, on the other hand, look at the oil/gas pipeline being considered in Western Mass. A private entity is looking for state permission to exercise eminent domain over small property owners, who will essentially lose the rights to their property for the benefit of who? shareholders? ingrate consumers in Boston?
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK, Your on.
>
>
> "When did the government acquire "Rights"?" - It
> didn't! - It Can't!
Dunno where this comment came from but I'm guessing that government "rights" devolve to the Constitution. If the government, ie federal, didn't have "rights" there would be no standards whatsoever to keep some sort of stability in the day to day functioning of the country.
> 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.
I missed the part where your right to vote has been nullified. I know, lots of political groups want to limit that right, but as far as I know, you can still vote the goofs out.
>
>
> 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.
Yeah, he whines, yet he has no problem with using the 2nd Amendment, ie government, as a "right" to carry his AK-47 from Calif to where ever, despite State's Rights banning such items.
>
> 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.
Yep, and yet the people who want to control how their money is spent have no problem with using someone else's $'s to build a water treatment plant from which they will benefit. Where I live, the state is thinking of increasing the mileage of the Tollway system, to relieve the state of the financial burden. It ain't going well. Oddly enough, the less tax people don't want to pay for the highway services.
>
> 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!
Yep... "need". Should the taxpayers spend $'s so the farmers in the Imperial Valley can get water for their crops, or should the farmers take it upon themselves to move to a more equitable climate. From what I can tell, they don't grow anything I eat, yahooo Brazil, so why should I fund their agua?
>
> 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.
Indeed the free market works just fine. I grew up in the 50's in a solid industrial job based economy town. The jobs went to the "right to work" states and ultimately to China.
Now, while the nabobs do real fine, financially, I sit along side a UP mainline watching stak train after stak train carrying Chinese made goods to an east coast market that can't afford anything more up town.
The free market is working just fine, the UP is doing quite well shipping that one way traffic.
>
> 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.
Sorry you said Liberal, you started pigeon holing, you lost that point right there.
>
> 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.
But it ain't easy. It isn't solvable, this is the real world, not one of academics.
> 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.
Good question, last thing I want to do is lose my property rights to the government, just ask anyone along IDoT's Prairie Parkway, who lost the rights to their land 20+ years ago to a highway never built.
But, on the other hand, look at the oil/gas pipeline being considered in Western Mass. A private entity is looking for state permission to exercise eminent domain over small property owners, who will essentially lose the rights to their property for the benefit of who? shareholders? ingrate consumers in Boston?
