Vice President Paul?

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Vice President Paul?

Postby Stebben84 » Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:09 am

johnfajardohenry wrote: I would be very interested to here any logical argument justifying the federal, or even a state, govt paying for it.


Less cars on the road mean less maintenance of said roads means less money the gov't has to spend fixing those roads.

FJD
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3538
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm

Re: Vice President Paul?

Postby FJD » Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:16 am

Stebben84 wrote:
johnfajardohenry wrote: I would be very interested to here any logical argument justifying the federal, or even a state, govt paying for it.


Less cars on the road mean less maintenance of said roads means less money the gov't has to spend fixing those roads.


More citizens exercising means lower health care costs

Less cars in use leads to less air pollution and lower health care costs

Fewer auto accidents due to fewer cars on the road means lower auto insurance costs (and less health care costs)

Reduced reliance on powered vehicles for transportation means less fossil fuels used, reducing foreign spending.

johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1982
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Vice President Paul?

Postby johnfajardohenry » Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:43 am

Francis Di Domizio wrote:
Less cars on the road mean less maintenance of said roads means less money the gov't has to spend fixing those roads.


Are we talking about bike lanes (on roads) which I agree replace a few cars as people ride to work.

Or are we talking about "bike paths" (off road) which was the original comment. I think of these as being mainly recreational. How many people ride bike paths to work?

Bike lanes do replace some cars but do they really reduce pollution? Since the add to congestion on the roads (sometimes as a stated goal of the bike lane supporters. See Portland OR) they may cause more pollution than they avoid.

John Henry

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 23708
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Vice President Paul?

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:49 am

johnfajardohenry wrote: How many people ride bike paths to work?

Maybe not in your home town, but hundreds, if not thousands do in Madison.

FJD
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3538
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm

Re: Vice President Paul?

Postby FJD » Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:59 am

That was actually a quote from Stebben84 but I will reply to your question about path use.

johnfajardohenry wrote:Are we talking about bike lanes (on roads) which I agree replace a few cars as people ride to work.

Or are we talking about "bike paths" (off road) which was the original comment. I think of these as being mainly recreational. How many people ride bike paths to work?


When I lived in Madison I biked to work using both bike path's and bike lanes all the time. Madison is actually set up with a fairly intelligent bike path system that makes that makes commuting via bike path very possible.

Here in Milwaukee on the other hand the bike paths are designed more for recreation but that is an issue of design. When I did commute by bike in Milwaukee, it was all on city street that did not have bike lanes.

So if a city has an intelligent design to their bike paths, they should be removing some bikes from city street (and reducing congestion on said streets), though obviously some street riding would always be necessary to get from you path to your specific destination.

Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Vice President Paul?

Postby Detritus » Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:04 pm

johnfajardohenry wrote:If your city wants to provide bike paths with monies taken at gunpoint from the money's creators, I think it is wrong.

Ah yes, representative democracy = armed robbery. There's a reasoned argument for you.

FJD
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3538
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm

Re: Vice President Paul?

Postby FJD » Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:21 pm

Detritus wrote:
johnfajardohenry wrote:If your city wants to provide bike paths with monies taken at gunpoint from the money's creators, I think it is wrong.

Ah yes, representative democracy = armed robbery. There's a reasoned argument for you.


Alexander Fraser Tytler or Alexis de Tocqueville wrote:A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.


Thankfully democracy is preserved by our inability to agree on anything :D

pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7162
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: Vice President Paul?

Postby pjbogart » Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:56 pm

johnfajardohenry wrote:We could also argue about whether bike paths are something that any govt should be paying for. I would be very interested to here any logical argument justifying the federal, or even a state, govt paying for it.

There is certainly nothing in the federal Constitution justifying bike paths. (No, "Promote the general welfare doesn't cover it")


Seems like plenty of people weighed in on whether bike paths "promote the general welfare," but perhaps you'd like to ask Ann if she has some case law you can post. Or maybe some links to Hillsdale College's Constitution 101 course. Rush Limbaugh tells me it's a great way to learn all about the Founding Fathers' intents.

Or maybe you just go the Cornbread route and stick with "it's my opinion, therefore it's valid."

pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7162
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: Vice President Paul?

Postby pjbogart » Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:10 pm

johnfajardohenry wrote:
pjbogart wrote:Autonomy and self-reliance are largely illusions in modern society.


Shouldn't you have put quote marks around that? I think it is a quote from Mussolini in the 1920s to justify his version of national socialism. (Fascism)

It is certainly of a piece with his best known quote, no?


Are you accusing me of plagiarism, John? Your quotes from Mussolini appeared nothing like my own so I'm not sure why you claimed they are similar.

In my mind, autonomy is illusory because you cannot help but avail yourself of the benefits of society. The air you breathe, the water you drink and the food you eat are all safe to consume because we the people made it so. Even if you move to the country and farm, fish and hunt for your sustenance, we the people managed the game so that you had deer to hunt, protected the air so that streams and lakes were clean and if you decide that you miss your creature comforts, we'll stop by and string up some electricity so that you can visit the dailypage.

So what I meant was "even if you believe yourself to be self-reliant, you aren't."

johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1982
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Vice President Paul?

Postby johnfajardohenry » Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:42 am

[quote="pjbogart"]
Are you accusing me of plagiarism, John? Your quotes from Mussolini appeared nothing like my own so I'm not sure why you claimed they are similar.[/quote="pjbogart"]

No, I was trying to be facetious. It does sound like something Mussolini would have said but I do not think you were plagiarizing him.

[quote="pjbogart"]In my mind, autonomy is illusory because you cannot help but avail yourself of the benefits of society. The air you breathe, the water you drink and the food you eat are all safe to consume because we the people made it so.[/quote="pjbogart"]

Quite so. Unless I want to go live in a cave, I am dependent for much on my fellow man and woman. I suspect that you will find very few liberals (or libertarians as many call us) who deny that. The question is whether our interactions are to be compulsory or voluntary.

You seem to be leaning towards the fascist ideal of making more and more actions compulsory via govt force (or "enforcement" if you prefer that word). As Mussolini said: "All within the state..." (All for the greater good of society, doncha know).

I believe that most interactions should be voluntary. Very few interactions should be compulsory and those at the lowest level possible. If Madison wants bike paths, Madisonians, as opposed to Alabamians, should pay for them. I would take it a step further and say that if individuals in Madison want bike paths, those individuals should pay for them. Those who don't want them should not be forced to pay for them.

Most liberals believe that, in my experience. It is pretty much the core liberal belief.

John Henry

johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1982
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Vice President Paul?

Postby johnfajardohenry » Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:48 am

Detritus wrote:
johnfajardohenry wrote:If your city wants to provide bike paths with monies taken at gunpoint from the money's creators, I think it is wrong.

Ah yes, representative democracy = armed robbery. There's a reasoned argument for you.


Nope. I did not say armed robbery. All I did was point out that all taxes are collected at gunpoint. Unless they were funded by voluntary donations, the bike paths were funded by taxes collected at gunpoint.

If you do not believe me, don't pay your taxes and see what happens.

You are the one what characterized that as "armed robbery". Not me.

I won't argue it with you.

John Henry

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Vice President Paul?

Postby Stebben84 » Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:53 am

johnfajardohenry wrote:Nope. I did not say armed robbery. All I did was point out that all taxes are collected at gunpoint. Unless they were funded by voluntary donations, the bike paths were funded by taxes collected at gunpoint.

If you do not believe me, don't pay your taxes and see what happens.


Bullshit. If you don't pay your taxes, you may in the end get arrested, but getting arrested doesn't mean a gun is pulled on you.

The bike paths were funded by individuals elected by the people. Don't like it, vote them out. It's called democracy.

johnfajardohenry wrote: I suspect that you will find very few liberals (or libertarians as many call us)


Even bigger load of horseshit. I've never once heard someone hijack the word liberal to replace libertarian. Totally different.

wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3247
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm
Contact:

Re: Vice President Paul?

Postby wack wack » Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:56 am

johnfajardohenry wrote:All I did was point out that all taxes are collected at gunpoint.


Absolutely moronic. The only reason anyone has the balls to say something this stupid is if they're sure there are even dumber people around to believe them.

No doubt, John Henry, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1982
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Vice President Paul?

Postby johnfajardohenry » Tue Jun 19, 2012 10:42 am

Stebben84 wrote:
johnfajardohenry wrote:Bullshit. If you don't pay your taxes, you may in the end get arrested, but getting arrested doesn't mean a gun is pulled on you.


And if you decline to be arrested? Do they just say "oops, never mind?"

Any resistance you make to paying taxes will be met with greater force by the state. Resist enough and you will ultimately be met with deadly force.

You are right in that it seldom comes to this. Most people recognize the futility of resistance, especially resistance by force. The guns seldom need to be displayed.

But we all know they are there.

John Henry

johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1982
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Vice President Paul?

Postby johnfajardohenry » Tue Jun 19, 2012 11:01 am

Stebben84 wrote:
Even bigger load of horseshit. I've never once heard someone hijack the word liberal to replace libertarian. Totally different.


If true, that means that you are not very well read. You could start with Hayek:

I use throughout the term ‘liberal’ in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftish movements in this country, helped by muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that ‘liberal’ has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control. I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable term but should even have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium. This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the consequent tendency of many true liberals to describe themselves as conservatives.” —F.A. Hayek, in the Forward to “The Road to Serfdom” (1944)

Milton Friedman discusses this same thing in his 1963 book "Capitalism and Freedom".

If Wikipedia is more your speed, there is a good entry on "liberalism":

"Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is a political ideology or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and the free exercise of religion.[3][4][5][6][7]"

A bit further down the page:

"Words such as liberal, liberty, libertarian, and libertine all trace their history to the Latin liber, which means "free"."
++++

Then you might read the entry on "Classical liberalism" which, among other things says:

"Classical liberalism is a political ideology that advocates limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, individual liberties including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1][2]"

And then:

"The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[10]

Libertarianism has been used in modern times as a substitute for the phrase "neo-classical liberalism", leading to some confusion. The identification of libertarianism with neo-classical liberalism primarily occurs in the United States,[11] where some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government.[12][13][14]"
+++

Plenty of links in both articles where you can learn more if you care to.

You may or may not agree with this definition of liberalism or classical liberalism. You may think that my use of the word liberal is improper. You may even think it is evil.

But to say that you have never heard of it?

Shocking for someone who wants to discuss politics not to even know the most basic terminology.

You really need get yourself better informed.

So what books are you currently reading? Perhaps I could suggest some for you?

John Henry


Return to “National Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests