all interesting points... but which government agency is forcing you,
myself, and every other programmer to contribute 30% of your time to open
source projects that you may or may not want to contribute? Taking without
my permission is stealing. The government takes my money without my
permission (choosing payment over jail time is not permission)
"I think the real measure of a society's greatness is the way it treats its
most vulnerable members."
I agree, thats why I donate my time, money, and effort to causes I support
when I want, how I want, and to what degree I want. The same can not be said
regarding government assistance programs. Thats why things like the
Salvation Army and most soup kitchens still exist despite government
programs "effectiveness."
Libertarianism is pooling your resources for your causes, when and how you
want.
Socialism is pooling your resources how your government wants, without any
control on your part.
I do take the bus, every day to work. And I bike between house<->bus and the
bus<->work.
I agree with all of your goals, its your method that scares me and holds
back the growth of all classes, especially the poor.
The question I ask myself often is, "what if everything I believed was
wrong? How would that impact my goals? my methods? my life?" I know my
answer... do you?
Thanks for the interaction! This is great! We need to meet at an upcoming
meeting.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Alex Dean <
alex@crackpot.org> wrote:
> Eric Cope wrote:
>
> However, if the government were to steal money for other purposes, that
>> don't benefit you, then it would be a completely different situation.
>>
>
> That's what elections are for. If you don't like what your taxes are
> being spent for, elect someone else. If you want to have no taxes and no
> services, fair 'nuff. I wouldn't vote for that, but I can cope with people
> disagreeing.
>
> 'Stealing' is an inaccurate term in my view. I don't personally benefit
> from food stamps, unemployment insurance, homeless shelters, or a
> million other programs, but I am happy to contribute to them. I think
> the real measure of a society's greatness is the way it treats its most
> vulnerable members. We hear a lot of pandering to the 'middle class',
> and not nearly enough about helping the poor. To tell me I only support
> things out of selfishness just means you don't know me at all.
>
> You're taking some suggestions I had about concrete,
> tangible ideas (get a quote for solar hot water, check the bus
> schedules), and turning this into a thread about ideology, about the
> illegitimacy of government. It's not very convincing, and seems likely
> to spark a 'my politics is better than your politics' argument. 'Ideas'
> and 'ideology' have a common root, but in practice they rarely interact. If
> we can stick to specific points, I'm with you. If we're going up in the
> clouds, I quit.
>
> Additionally, when you see how much
>> money the city governments subsidize your bus system, and now light rail
>> system, your $/mile or $/day is very high.
>>
>
> How much do we spend on road maintenance? How much land do we loose to
> huge superhighways to accommodate all those cars? What price do we all
> pay breathing the smog produced by large numbers of cars with only 1
> occupant? How much time do we lose sitting in traffic jams?
>
> If you don't live near a convenient bus route, don't use the bus. My point
> was you'd be surprised how often you can get where you're going, and in
> about the same amount of time, and without having to look for a parking
> space at the end of your ride. If you want to drive, by all means. I use
> my car often enough, and I'm not trying to tell you cars are bad.
>
> > Additionally, while city
>
>> governments subsidize bus systems, they also prevent other systems from
>> entering the market through licensing and lack of subsidies. The end result
>> is a very poor system that has no market forces forcing it to be 2 of the 3,
>> better, faster, or cheaper.
>>
>
> Multiple transit companies competing can also be a huge waste of
> resources. Lots of duplicated effort. Lots of redundant service in
> high-population areas and a lack of service elsewhere. A transit system
> works best when it's comprehensive, when you can get EVERYWHERE. Maybe some
> private contracts would improve things in some areas, but I'd be really
> leery of turning the whole thing over to the lowest bidder.
>
> For example, I wanted to take a
>> bus from i-10 and Elliot to ASU. The bus route would take just over an
>> hour. I rode my bike the seven miles in 30 minutes.
>>
>
> No doubt routes could be improved. My observation has been that if you
> live near a route that works, the system is pretty good. But too often,
> you don't. The system is not nearly as comprehensive is it ought to be,
> and I'd support ideas to make it more so.
>
> About the bike : Folks who are blind, elderly, or in a wheelchair aren't
> going to be riding a bike. I think providing basic transportation
> options to everyone is a legitimate service a local government ought to
> provide. It's not stealing, and I don't know why you'd call it that.
>
> Your favored
>> subsidies, your pooled resources, create (financially, timely, and
>> environmentally) extremely inefficient mechanisms, in this case a crappy,
>> smelly, rude, late, slow, bus system.
>>
>
> I dismiss this as unsupported assertion, not real argument. With this
> kind of hyperbole, I'm rapidly losing interesting in continuing the
> discussion. You're coming off as a zealot. You continue to imply that
> there's no legitimate role for government in providing public transit, and I
> think you're flat wrong about that, but if you're going to make your point
> with talk-radio style I'll just let this drop. A civil debate with actual
> information I'm interested in, a shouting match I'm not. I like to have my
> thinking challenged, but I don't like to be berated.
>
> The core of what I'm trying to say is simple. Just this : There are lots
> of good ideas for lessening our energy consumption. Cars with better MPG
> are only 1 of them. The bus system works quite well in many circumstances.
> I benefit, and so do many others. You might be pleasantly surprised if you
> try it. That's it. Not much more to it.
>
> I appreciate your last statement about having a good debate, and no I
> don't take it personally. But if you want to turn this into a tirade
> about the tyranny of the nanny state, you're going much further afield
> than I have interest in following.
>
> kind regards,
> alex
>
> ps - Maybe I can make this point a different way : 'pooling resources'
> is exactly what makes open source work. If everybody insisted on doing
> everything for themselves, we'd all be re-implementing a merge sort in
> assembly language every time we wanted to put up a web page. It might be
> fun, but it certainly isn't productive. If you're so libertarian that any
> cooperation seems like socialism, I think we aren't going to find much
> common ground.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)