Libertarian freedom

[Leopard]

Originally posted by Bob_Dobbs, the idea was first crafted in deutschland as the autobahn. eisenhower thought it was a good idea, which is true.

your opinion - get enough folks to believe as you then you can fund it yourselves - elsewise, please stop asking our government to steal from me to pay for your personal projects

michael

where do you draw the line between 'personal projects' and 'the police and fire services'?

[Leopard]

Originally posted by Jet, And they're really going to have the money to build that, not to mention the financial interest of building roads to Middle of Nowhere, Nebraska, right?

explain why the 'middle of nowhere, Nebraska' needs to be subsidized with funds from downtown LA?

private citizens and business are quite capable of of completing massive projects - take the Golden Gate Bridge for example - not $1 of public funds... the ONLY requirement is a definite NEED - something the government does not require in its effort to spend us into the poorhouse

michael

who makes money off the golden gate bridge? who maintains it? who was inspired to build it and for what purpose?

[Jet]

Because a few bucks from LA are less important than having Middle of Nowhere, Nebraska connected to the rest of the world.

Originally posted by Leopard,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Leopard,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-dave654, Actully, the Interstate system was originally Eisenhowers project.  The intent was to allow easier transportation of military equipment withing the borders of the US.     This was a legitimate project for government to prosecute.  Government should do for you, us, what you can't do for yourself.

sorry - wrong

Ike ended up passing the Highway System under the guise of the Defense Department BUT that is only because he couldn't get the votes to pass it otherwise - it was a fiercely debated issue in its day and thousands of peoples lives were destroyed in the process (and continue to be destroyed).

We and our children will continue to be economically harmed by this example of government doing what the market DID NOT WANT!

michael[/b][/quote]

Hi Michael
So, what's the whole story. Why did Ike originally want to build the interstate system? How were thousands of people's lives destroyed then and now? How are we being economically harmed?

[Leopard]

JET:
Because a few bucks from LA are less important than having Middle of Nowhere, Nebraska connected to the rest of the world.

says you, and you are willing to steal from the poor folks in LA to pay for your Highway to Nowhere project... nice

Mr. Dobbs:
who makes money off the golden gate bridge? who maintains it? who was inspired to build it and for what purpose?

I haven't done any research into it except that it was an entirely private matter

Dave:
So, what's the whole story. Why did Ike originally want to build the interstate system? How were thousands of people's lives destroyed then and now? How are we being economically harmed?

Glad you asked as the Highway System is one of my pet economic projects....
will give ya a brief rundown.
Ikes motivations? anyones guess, but, the trucking industry (who obviously benefit from the highwway subsidy) were chief lobbyists as were the umpteen construction companies and all the super pork barrel projects and immense politicing which accompanied this massive redirection of wealth and funds.
Initial Harm: Entire towns dried up as the highway went through neighboring towns or bypassed them altogether. Property was stolen in the name of eminent domain. In addition to the incredible economic maljustment which shifted labor in directions unwanted by folks and money/wealth that otherwise would have gone to more efficient uses. In the end, when the economy adjusts to these influences, it means that citizens went 'without': food, housing, cars, toys, etc. Pure and simple, more people died than if the project did not go through.

Continued Harm and the worst harm: the unseen -
since the highway system subsidized both the trucking and auto industries and consequently the oil industry, other forms of transportation (both actual and uninvented) were unable to compete. This means the trains and personal aircraft and other possible unknown transportation modes. One comparison with subsidizing trucks over trains is the drastic difference in fuel efficiency and pollution increase, not to mention shipping costs which affect all distribution systems including food. To highlight this problem, here is an example: Suppose two points on the map (towns) and a business is trying to determine the best method of regular, efficient transport. They MIGHT decide to put in a rail, or compare to lighter-than-air craft (very efficient for heavy loads). When determining costs, they take into account the initial outlay, the ongoing maintainence, and the costs of operations. If the government comes and lays down a highway at taxpayer expense, then all the sudden trucks, no matter what their inefficiencies, start looking really good because the company doesn't have to pay for the road or maintenance - if they choose another method they would still have to account for the infrastructure (rails, etc).

So, now we have the highways already built and the maintenance is subsidized through taxes - which means that trucking continues to have a total advantage over other methods probably for another 25 years or more - preventing more efficient methods from being developed. We continue to suffer for the actions of the government 50 years ago... as will our children.

gotta go now - theres more to come - a beer somewhere has my name on it TGIF!

michael

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Jet
For someone that has 99.9% of his ideas off the mainstream you sure hide them well. So far you have yet to voice an idea I have not heard many times.

I think others have covered for me fairly well, since thursday I have class from 10am-10pm. I will be very happy to graduate in March. Senior in 6 weeks. :)

Anything you think they missed?

[Jet]

No, I never said that, GreatWyrm - I said that my ideas are off 99.9% of the mainstream. You know, things like legalizing treason, gutting Social Security but replacing it with need-based aid, and reducing parents' role in child rearing. These are the really weird ones; the others are more mainstream.

Leopard, you're making an equivocation fallacy, a.k.a. the fallacy of four terms. Your argument boils down to:
1. Stealing is bad
2. Government spending on highways is stealing
3. Hence, government spending on highways is bad
You'll need to define "stealing" in a way where both 1 and 2 are true; the conventional definition of taking away somebody else's property against their wishes doesn't satisfy 1, for instance, and it's easy to argue that it doesn't satisfy 2 either.

[Leopard]

sorry Jet, wasn't positioning my thoughts in argument format... here might be a better way to put it:

First, as you suggested, 'stealing' needs to be defined:

theft or stealing: the forceable confiscation of property (or wealth/money) without the owners consent. (The 'forceable' part is redundant since it is implied in the 'without consent' part - I just wanted to make sure it was understood that force is a component)

notice there is no 'conditions' which apply for exceptions like:
(1) the size or nature of the group doing the confiscation
It doesn't matter if a single person (a mugger) or a large group of folks (a gang or an army or the IRS) does the confiscation

(2) any subjective characterization of the amount of wealth stolen compared to the total amount the original owner might have had
Theft of an apple from a starving man or theft of an apple from an Apple Grower (with presumably 1,000's of other apples) is still the exact same theft - the OWNER might valuate the theft differently, but that is his/her valuation to do SOLEY, as in ANY transaction

(3) the purported<sp?> use of the items stolen after the theft
if a mugger steals from me to turn around and give to a needy old woman or pay for his mother's heart surgery does not change the inherent 'wrong' of the crime-once again, the only valid 'valuations' applied to specific circumstances are incumbent upon the actors in the transaction itself: in this case the original owner

So, we humans have universally determined that 'theft' is morally 'wrong' - certain cultures have different definitions (or none at all) for private property in that all or some property is considered 'community property' and thus the term 'theft' does not apply since it has no 'owner'. But we are containing our discussion to the larger countries of the world, the US in particular, in which private property rights are recognized.

As a side note: the free market and its benefits can ONLY operate effectively in areas where private property rights ARE recognized - they are a pre-condition of a Free Market to exist.

this is going to be a long and drawn out process here so I will interrupt to let you comment on the above definition to make sure we stay on the same page... afterwards I can continue with the argument...

waiting on Jet (and others)

enjoying the communication,
michael

Greatwyrm
"Jet
For someone that has 99.9% of his ideas off the mainstream you sure hide them well."

Jet
"No, I never said that, GreatWyrm - I said that my ideas are off 99.9% of the mainstream."

HUH?? Sounds like the same thing to me.

Greatwyrm
"Jet
For someone that has 99.9% of his ideas off the mainstream you sure hide them well."

Jet
"No, I never said that, GreatWyrm - I said that my ideas are off 99.9% of the mainstream."

HUH?? Sounds like the same thing to me.

[PatrickHenry]

jinx xox, double post!!

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

dave
Apparently it is his version of logic that is 99.9% off the mainstream.

Originally posted by Jet You know, things like legalizing treason, gutting Social Security but replacing it with need-based aid, and reducing parents' role in child rearing.

Nazi-socialism? Or is it Social-facsism?

[Jet]

Nope, it's simply called modern liberalism. If I were a socialist, I wouldn't support legalizing treason, and I would likely shout idiotic mantras about capitalism and the workers, much in the same fasion libertarians shout idiotic mantra about government and freedom.

So, we humans have universally determined that 'theft' is morally 'wrong'

I disagree. Property rights the way you define them are part of quality of life, but especially as you pull out of poverty, they are far less important than raw quality of life issues (e.g. giving the apply to the hugnry woman). Further, remember that taxation on income and/or sales does not take private property but rather operates on public transactions. And finally, since many decisions can't be taken individually - e.g. public goods - in a sense the people authorize taxation indirectly by supporting a government that has it.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Er, modern liberalism is mainstream, how does that make you 99.9% off mainstream???

[Jet]

The philosophy is; thinking that humanism and individualism are incompatible with criminalizing treason isn't.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

So, that means that 99.% of your thoughts are about treason? Or divided between humansm and individualism, whatever those buzzwords mean to you.

[Comrade]

These arguements always turn into definition-fests

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Of course they do, the largest seperation between ideals are often the interpretation of a few minor points. The other option is simply a flame war, or is that your prefference?