In the previous post, the question was raised as to whether or not civilization has a corrupting nature. It would be my contention that civilization has a tendency towards corruption - that is, towards degrading humanity and the world.
Corrupt, in these senses of the word:
1. debased in character; depraved
2. to alter for the worse; debase.
3. to mar; spoil.
Some specific examples:
Over 200 years ago, white settlers began establishing a fort and homes at the Falls of the Ohio, at the confluence of Beargrass Creek. Out of the then-turbulent waters of the Ohio, Louisville was born.
We promptly set up homes and soon were discharging our sewage directly into Beargrass Creek and the Ohio River. They were convenient disposal systems.
And, I suppose that probably worked (sort of), as long as the homes were not too concentrated. Animals use the great outdoors to dispose of their waste all the time and it is quite sanitary (of course, they don't usually dump their wastes right into the water supply!).
But the thing is, this is NOT a workable solution once you establish a true civilization with lots of folk around. It just leaves you with toxic, useless water.
And eventually, Louisville realized this and began trying to create a sewage system that wasn't toxic and destructive. The problem was/is, that once you begin down that road, it becomes difficult to change directions. It requires deliberate and expensive efforts and agreement to put up the expense and, in our case, some 200 years later, we're still trying to end this corruptive practice.
Progress - civilization - need not be self-destructive, but it tends to be.
Another 100 or so years later, automobiles start coming along. People could then travel from place to place more quickly and without the trouble of dealing with horses or the effort of a bicycle or of walking.
And, as long as there were only a few automobiles around, the dangers and pollution caused by cars was not a problem.
But, when everyone owns a car, then suddenly it is not safe to drive or walk or bicycle around the city. Our cities sprawl, costing billions of dollars to the citizenry. Our air and water become more toxic, with all those accompanying losses and costs. The presence of many cars soon creates a self-necessitating system where, well, you NEED a car to get around. It's no longer so safe to walk or bike and things are spread out more so it is no longer so possible to walk or bike.
Civilization created a system that was self-destructive and "necessary," we built in a dependence upon a corruptive system of transportation.
Did/does this auto culture have a positive side? Sure. You can get places more quickly. In greater comfort. With less physical work (although you certainly have to make up with that in MORE work to pay for the "convenience" of the auto). I'm not denying that civilization, in delivering automobiles or a way of disposing of waste, did not give us some advancements.
The question is: How corruptive was our approach to civilization? At what cost did these advances come? Is this corruption part and parcel of civilization and a necessary price to pay for the advances of civilization? OR, could we be civilized at a more reasonable, less corrupting cost?
Personally, I don't think that civilization HAS to be more corrupting than beneficial (and I don't believe I'm even making the case that it is MORE corrupting than not, just that it's too corrupting). We COULD plan more wisely. We COULD choose personally and societally to make living in harmony with nature a higher priority. It's just that it tends to, in part because of our own flawed humanity and in part due to a lack of deliberate intent to plan responsibly - living a laissez faire life.
Civilization tends toward corruptive practices (practices that accompany and are part and parcel of the "advances" of civilization) and avoiding that takes serious, deliberate intent and planning and cooperation. And not a little wisdom.
Personally, I'm no longer much interested in debating whether civilization is a net positive or negative. I think it's obviously a net positive, Dan, and I don't find your arguments to the contrary to be all that persuasive. You describe the effects of civilization as toxic and unsafe while ignoring the reality that infant mortality rates and life expectancy consistently increase as civilization advances, to the degree that Malthus and his intellectual heirs regularly predict a catastrophe, not because civilization is killing us, but because it's TOO healthy for us -- that it allows too many babies to live to their second birthday and allows too many of us to live to eighty, ninety, and beyond.
ReplyDeleteI mention all that in passing, and perhaps as something of an explanation for why I'm not adding much more to this particular discussion. What I would like to focus on is what you mean by "living a laissez faire life."
This is the second time you've recently denounced a laissez faire society, and contextually you seem to mind nothing more than a life that is unexamined and not deliberate.
But that's not what the word means. Laissez faire refers to "a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights."
The word doesn't imply an absence of careful planning, just an absence of coercive, centralized planning. The word doesn't imply a decadent society, just a free society.
In the earlier thread, you responded to my concern that back-to-nature movements feed to totalitarianism, thus:
"Most back to nature movements of which I'm aware are fairly individualistic - 'I need to get back to living simply within the realm and boundaries of God's Creation.'"
But when you repeatedly attack a laissez faire economy, you suggest that the solution to the problems is an authoritarian government. If that's not what you mean to imply, you shouldn't misuse the term by attaching to it a private definition.
But if that is what you mean to imply -- if you think that the "serious, deliberate intent and planning and cooperation" that you advocate should come from a coercive government -- you should be a little more clear and honest about your tendency to advocate statist solutions.
I mean to imply the french meaning of the term, "let it be," or taking life as it comes at us without examination. Taking life as it comes at you without consideration of larger consequences of our actions.
ReplyDeleteIn this context, that is what I mean and not so much the economic meaning. My apologies for any confusion.
But when you repeatedly attack a laissez faire economy, you suggest that the solution to the problems is an authoritarian government.
1. I have never made an appeal to an authoritarian gov't.
(Authoritarianism: A style of government in which the rulers demand unquestioning obedience from the ruled. Traditionally, ‘authoritarians’ have argued for a high degree of determination by governments of belief and behaviour and a correspondingly smaller significance for individual choice.)
It is a twisting of what I've argued for to suggest that I'm encouraging authoritarianism.
2. What I've argued for is a reasoned DEMOCRATIC style of gov't, but instead of encouraging wasteful hyperconsumption and subsidized bad behavior (as we currently do, with automobiles, for instance), it would encourage responsible living.
Dan, the French phrase "laissez faire" does NOT mean "let it be." It means, "let them do."
ReplyDeleteThe phrase uses the French word for "to do", faire, not the French word for "to be", etre.
You claim that you "mean to imply the french meaning of the term, 'let it be,' or taking life as it comes at us without examination."
But that's not what the term means, in French or in English. If you want to use a common foreign phrase to describe the sort of thoughtless living that you decry, I recommend the Spanish, que sera, sera.
As it is, I do see that you don't support lifting government subsidies in favor of a truly free market. You support a government that "would encourage responsible living." How precisely it would do that, you don't say, but I doubt your position is a full-throated defense of laissez-faire economics.
That you support a democratic government -- where the people make the decisions, as opposed to an autocracy -- doesn't necessarily mean that support a constitutionally limited government and a truly free market and society. There are those who believe that an elected government should run a command economy -- where democracy is the means to achieve a socialist economy. Not surprisingly, this political philosophy is called democratic socialism, and it has more political power in Europe than here.
Personally, I agree with Hayek that socialism is the road to serfdom, that even so-called democratic socialism inevitably leads to tyranny. Nevertheless, one can believe in both democracy and some form of socialism. That you support free elections is not proof that you support free markets.
As I've noted in the past, I DON'T supported wholly unfettered markets. No one does. That would be a truly hellish scenario, in my mind. Companies free to pollute as they see fit, free to discriminate and employ unjust practices. We all agree some rules are a good thing, at least I'd hope.
ReplyDeleteAnd I know that the literal meaning of laissez faire is let them do, but my understanding is that it implies, "let them do as they wish, let them be" in that regards. But I'm not a french-speaker so perhaps I'm mistaken.
Personally, I agree with Hayek that socialism is the road to serfdom, that even so-called democratic socialism inevitably leads to tyranny.
ReplyDeleteMyself, I have never made an endorsement of socialism, although I have friends who believe in democratic socialism and I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing, I'm just not convinced of its efficacy.
But getting back to the point of this post, I believe we can and ought, as individuals, choose to live a life more in compliance with natural laws, more in tune with God's Creation and that in doing so, we'd have a healthier life, society and economy.
I further believe that we can, and ought, as a community of citizens, choose...
1. NOT to implement policies (as we currently do) that subsidize, endorse and promote unhealthy living (in our motorist, coal and oil company subsidization and policies)
2. And, once we have ended the subsidization of unhealthy, anti-nature policies, we can see how things stand and, if it seems appropriate...
3. We can, as citizens, vote for policies that promote healthy living more in tune with natural law and Creation.
We do this already (we don't allow blatant dumping of toxins into streams - except when we do and call it Support of Free Enterprise, for instance) and I don't think most reasonable people think it any different than regulating killing people or stealing stuff.
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis, "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment"
ReplyDeleteI wonder, given your CS Lewis quote above, if you agree that gays should be allowed to marry or if you think that is the dangerous interference of moral busybodies? If you agree that gays should be allowed to marry, do you speak out against those moral busybodies who would attempt to stop such civic actions.
ReplyDeleteOf all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
There is a point where Lewis is certainly correct - I think gay marriage is a perfect example of this. The point where he's correct is where the actions involved harm no one and yet moral busybodies who disagree with the action STILL want to legalize the matter.
Where Lewis' point would go wrong (and he'd probably agree, I suspect) is where you're talking about laws and regulations that protect people from actual physical harm.
Creating laws telling people what they can and can't smoke is pharisaical moral interference.
Creating laws telling people they can't drive when impaired is good, sensible legislation.
Creating regulations telling people how much money they can make is pharisaical moral interference.
Creating regulations telling people they can't dump toxins into the stream is good, sensible legislation.
Tell me, Bubba, that you're being consistent and coming out against moral busybodies but sensible and supporting legislation on rules to protect folk from harm.
Tell me you're not being a hypocrite.
Dan, I'm not being a hypocrite.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, given your CS Lewis quote above, if you agree that gays should be allowed to marry or if you think that is the dangerous interference of moral busybodies?
I do agree: radically changing the legal definition of marriage -- particularly through the undemocratic means of judicial activism -- is an example of dangerous interference on the part of moral busybodies.
There is a point where Lewis is certainly correct - I think gay marriage is a perfect example of this. The point where he's correct is where the actions involved harm no one and yet moral busybodies who disagree with the action STILL want to legalize the matter.
I agree: I do think moral busybodies are responsible for trying to change laws that do no harm, namely, laws that have -- for literal centuries -- defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
...or are you actually trying to argue that it's those who oppose such radicalism that are the moral busybodies?
About economics and environmental policy, it seems to me that you support laws that go far beyond those that are designed to "protect folk from harm."
You seem pragmatically open to government policies that "promote healthy living more in tune with natural law and Creation."
How coercive those policies would be, you don't say. How intrusive those policies would be, you don't say.
But you're quite clear about your dislike of the free market, writing that a truly free market would be "truly hellish". And you're rather ambivalent about socialism, writing only that you're "just not convinced of its efficacy."
If you're going to object to my presuming that your preferred policies are quite statist, you should be detailed about what policies you support.
1. My positions about the free market have nothing to do with like or dislike but morality vs immorality and what works vs what doesn't.
ReplyDelete2. You can presume what you wish about my positions, I'm telling you the truth is that I am thinking that a regulated capitalism is probably what works best, at least in our context.
3. An unregulated capitalism would be about as moral as an unregulated robbery. If we're going to abide merely by the morals of "what gets me the most money at the least effort" then we're abandoning some pretty core American and Christian values. No thanks.
4. In this post, I'm talking about the value of abiding by natural laws and living in ways that are in tune with Creation. To that end: Do you think sustainable values and living within our means are good values to live by personally and, indeed, to endorse (not enforce, wholly) with our community policy?
I do, and fail to see how anyone could disagree with this overarching value. I can certainly understand about disagreeing with how we reach that value, but it would seem to me to be a hard value to disagree with.
Dan, "regulated capitalism" is as nonsensical a phrase as "gay marriage." Words mean things, and just as marriage means the union of a man and a woman, capitalism entails a free market: by definition, a market cannot be both free and regulated beyond the rule of law that criminalizes theft and murder.
ReplyDeleteSince I believe that the free market is the most moral and the most efficient, I believe that, coupled with fair and rational analysis, a concern for morality and efficacy will lead a person to economic libertarianism.
You grossly misunderstand the free market -- or American principles and Christian ethics -- if you think that individual economic liberty is contrary to either one.
To answer your question, I do believe that living within our means is both prudent and moral, but I disagree with your formulation that doing so requires us to abandon non-renewable sources of energy. To use your ridiculous analogy of winning a lottery, it makes no sense to abstain altogether from using a one-time source of income just because it's not a repeating source of income.
(In particular, a man who uses some of his winnings to go back to school increases his potential productivity for when the lotto money is depleted. Likewise, technology continues to advance so that, when we switch to other sources of energy if/when oil becomes cost-prohibitive, we'll still be more productive then we were before the Industrial Revolution began, even if -- a very big "if" -- the golden age of cheap energy ends with petroleum.)
Your argument seems to be this:
1) It's good, moral, and even conservative to live within our means.
2) Living within our means requires us to abandon coal and petroleum and to use energy sources that we know are renewable.
Most of us on the other side of the aisle dispute this second implicit proposition, but rather than argue for the second, you act as if we disagree with the first proposition -- when we don't -- all so you can bemoan the absence of real conservatives.
"WHERE ARE THE CONSERVATIVES WHO ARE ACTUALLY CONSERVATIVE???"
It's a cheap rhetorical tactic that you employ here in another form, noting that you "fail to see how anyone could disagree with this overarching value" of living within our means, when you just raised the issue by asking me whether I disagree with the value.
Your argument seems to be this:
ReplyDelete1) It's good, moral, and even conservative to live within our means.
2) Living within our means requires us to abandon coal and petroleum and to use energy sources that we know are renewable.
You get my argument wrong. At least the second half to which you object.
Read what I've written. Each and every word. No where at any time at any place have I said that we must abandon coal and petroleum. You mistake my call to cut back on our hyperconsumption of these finite resources for a demand to abandon them altogether.
So, now that misunderstanding is cleared up.
For a while, I've thought that libertarianism tends to break down -- some -- when it comes to ecological issues. Due to our own corrupt nature as human beings, we're far more likely to dump our sewage (for example) for a quick buck and leave future generations do deal with the consequences.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that blows that argument out of the water, is the reality that now, right now, there are corporations responding to the "Go Green" hue and cry. Thus, if we assumed no regulations, what makes you think the greedy corporate heads would then ignore similar calls by the consumer? It goes against the very idea of being greedy, if we're to buy the idea that profits at any cost (so to speak) is the goal. What good does it do a company that dumps its waste in the river, if by doing so, people protest by boycotting them for the practice? The notion assumes no one cares, or that not enough do to make a difference. I think one can look at the direction to which companies are turning and see the opposite is more likely. The free market does correct itself. It ain't perfect, but it works far more efficiently than some wish to believe.
ReplyDeleteLOL! It's funny to watch you piously condemn humanity for your perceived destruction of "Mother" Earth while you cheer on those things that destroy souls.
ReplyDeleteFunny...in a sad sort of way.
I would like to briefly mention two more things.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the notion that opposition to homosexual marriage is merely the intrusion of "moral busybodies". This would be true if not for the fact that the opposition has the promotion of the general welfare in mind. That is, those who oppose do so in order that we be "more in compliance with natural laws, more in tune with God's Creation and that in doing so, we'd have a healthier life, society and economy."
The second point is the problem of unintended consequences. The work toward technological advances bring about unintended consequences no matter how much thought is put into the planning. If we use horses and other beasts of burden instead of cars and trucks, we have the problem of disease from the pollution of the animals' fecal matter. We lose the speed required in emergency situations. Automation can put some people out of work, but denying automation means the demands of an expanding populace isn't met.
If your notion of corruption is meant to imply human behavior, that's a direct result of human influence which exists in an average metropolis or a more communal arrangement. Again, the size of the community doesn't matter if unGodly influence isn't countered by Godly influence.
Read what I've written. Each and every word. No where at any time at any place have I said that we must abandon coal and petroleum. You mistake my call to cut back on our hyperconsumption of these finite resources for a demand to abandon them altogether.
ReplyDeleteDan, this is what you wrote very recently at ELAshley's blog, in response to Tugboatcapn's assertion that you have the burden of proof in establishing your claim that we're going to run out of oil.
"No, not me. The oil companies. The scientists who study these issues. The US gov't. THEY are the ones who acknowledge the reality that oil is a finite resource and we are reaching the peak of its cheap availability.
"If you don't think we should listen to the oil companies, the scientists and Bush's own scientists, then tell me on what basis we SHOULD continue to live beyond our means? Your hunch?
"What some have said MIGHT happen?
"Again, I'm just appealing to common sense and responsibility: IF we can only generate X amount of energy locally and sustainably, then we ought not consume more than X (and I'd suggest responsible behavior endorses consuming LESS than X, since X is not an exact figure in this case, but rather an estimate)."
You seem to treat our continued consumption of oil as continuing "to live beyond our means," and you explicitly write that we should consume only what energy that can be produced "locally and sustainably."
You've not explicitly said we should abandon oil and coal altogether, but you also haven't said how much we could consume sustainably.
For all the thousands of words that you write, Dan, you never come out of the tall grass to be detailed about your beliefs and policy positions. Clearly, you're at least open to much, much more than laws that criminalize river pollution, but -- never making clear what else you support -- you treat any skepticism about your evident statism as support for polluted rivers, as if that's the only policy you support. And, clearly, you think we're very close to running out of oil and you frequently criticize "living beyond our means," but you never give any real details about just how much oil you think mankind should be consuming each year.
My claim was that your position is this:
"Living within our means requires us to abandon coal and petroleum and to use energy sources that we know are renewable."
Correcting me, you say that it instead is a "call to cut back on our hyperconsumption of these finite resources."
How far should we cut back? You don't say.
You could do so now, in the spirit of clearing up any further misunderstandings.
No, I haven't offered many specifics. Which makes me wonder: Why, then, would you presume to think that it must be socialistic reasons?
ReplyDeleteThe statements I HAVE made about what we specifically ought to do, however, include lines such as this:
[We ought] NOT to implement policies (as we currently do) that subsidize, endorse and promote unhealthy living (in our motorist, coal and oil company subsidization and policies)
That is, I think that capitalism CAN work, when it is working right. When, for instance, we are not selling stuff for less than it costs. Gasoline is a great example of this.
Motorists in the US are paying way UNDER the actual costs of gasoline and driving. If they paid actual costs (for the roads on which they drove, for the gas which they purchase, for the damage done to the environment and to children, the elderly and the ill, for instance), then driving would cost a good bit more and there'd be much less incentive from the Market for everyone to have a personal auto.
So, my beginning point is endorsing Market solutions by ending motorist subsidies. After that, we can see if we need to do pro-active policies to encourage more sustainable living, but my starting point has been to quit the corporate and wealthy welfare and the anti-environmental policies.
Why, then, would you presume to think that it must be socialistic reasons?
ReplyDeleteYou believe that a truly free market would be "truly hellish", and you believe that free-market economics is contrary both to American values and Christian ethics.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
If you oppose subsidizing the country's automobile infrastructure, but do so only as a "starting point" after which you'll consider unspecified "pro-active policies to encourage more sustainable living," your opposition to those subsidies is hardly a principled expression of support for the free market.
"I think that capitalism CAN work, when it is working right."
That statement sums it up: you support the free market only insofar as you like the results. The moment individuals start making economic decisions that aren't to your liking, you support regulation that will bring the idiot masses back into line with your anointed vision of the good life.
The attitude is socialist with only the thinnest veneer of support for the free market. You support the free market only when it does what you like.
If Dan Trabue thinks that the price system is sufficiently encouraging lifestyles that Dan thinks is virtuous, he won't interfere.
Are we really supposed to praise you for such generous faith in individual economic freedom?
I don’t really care that you praise me nor do I expect you to praise me. Just like I wouldn’t praise your hypocrisy for saying that moral busybodies ought not intervene in political decisions EXCEPT for those political decisions in which you wish to be a busybody.
ReplyDeleteThe point is not praise of Dan but just a clarification of my position, which you consistently misrepresent.
My position is that I support a regulated capitalism (as you do), not socialism.
My qualified support has nothing to do with me supporting capitalism only when I “like” the results, as you incorrectly insinuate, but has to do with supporting what is morally sound and logically supported.
I do not support living beyond our means.
I do not support subsidizing wealthy corporations or motorists with my tax dollars.
I do not support spending tax dollars encouraging behaviors that are self-destructive and damaging to God’s creation and our home.
The amazing thing is that so many “conservatives” do.
Which I do not find praiseworthy any more than your hypocritical position on moral busybodies.
Dan, I didn't say I support corporate subsidies. Nor did I say what you accuse me of saying here:
ReplyDeleteJust like I wouldn’t praise your hypocrisy for saying that moral busybodies ought not intervene in political decisions EXCEPT for those political decisions in which you wish to be a busybody.
You can't find anything that even resembles that statement. You're bearing false witness, twisting words, liar liar pants on fire, etc., etc.
I think conservatives can disagree strongly with your so-called "regulated capitalism" and still be consistent with their conservatism, still be concerned with living within our means -- a phrase you invoke frequently but never adequately define -- and still advocate what is moral and rational.
About the free market, you write:
My qualified support has nothing to do with me supporting capitalism only when I “like” the results, as you incorrectly insinuate, but has to do with supporting what is morally sound and logically supported.
At best, it has to do with supporting what you think is morally sound and logically supported. Given the way you often argue, I wouldn't put much stock in your ideas of what's logical, but even if you were more logical than the average person, it still doesn't follow that you know better than the total sum of free-market forces in determining what's moral, efficient, prudent, and logical.
To quote Thomas Sowell, about your mindset:
"In their haste to be wiser and nobler than others, the anointed have misconceived two basic issues. They seem to assume (1) that they have more knowledge than the average member of the benighted and (2) that this is the relevant comparison. The real comparison, however, is not between the knowledge possessed by the average member of the educated elite versus the average member of the general public, but rather the total direct knowledge brought to bear though social processes (the competition of the marketplace, social sorting, etc.), involving millions of people, versus the secondhand knowledge of generalities possessed by a smaller elite group."
And, ultimately, once again you avoid the inconvenient details of your beliefs.
You tell us that you oppose subsidies to corporations, but not what subsidies you support. You tell us that you oppose spending tax money to support behaviors you find immoral, but not whether -- and how -- you support spending public money to encourage behaviors you like.
In almost every comment I've made in this thread, I've asked you to clarify your position. You're clearly far more interested in villifying those who dare to disagree with your position, vague as it remains.
I'll gladly clarify my position with some specifics (more specific than I have already made clear). But I didn't think there was much point on proceeding to specifics until we reached some consensus on generalities. So far, you seem to have opposed my general position, even though I don't see how anyone can.
ReplyDelete(And, by the way, I don't believe you have offered any specifics, either. And, to be fair, I have offered some fairly specific steps. I am in support of ENDING corporate welfare, of ending propping up motorists with taxpayer dollars - that IS pretty clear and specific.)
And so, can we agree on the general positions I've covered?
That is:
Do you think we, as a nation, ought to live within our means?
Do you think we ought not consume more than we can produce?
Do you think we ought not consume more than we can produce sustainably?
Do you agree that no one reasonably supports a wholly unregulated economy (ie, one in which there are no rules on businesses or individuals in the marketplace)?
Do you think we ought not, as a general rule, subsidize wealthy corporations?
Do you think we ought not, as a general rule, subsidize wealthy corporations especially when the behavior they would participate in/ encourage is damaging to the environment or people?
Those are some specific questions that I don't believe you have ever addressed except in ways that make it sound as if you are opposed to these commonsense, Conservative ideals (well, no, you DID agree that we ought to live within our means, but then followed that up with a misrepresentation of my views, so I'm just clarifying here).
Thank you for the more detailed policy positions, Dan.
ReplyDeleteI see you support ending subsidies for oil companies in favor of subsidizing mass transit, but you insist that you're only interested in people "paying their own way."
And I see you support requiring motorists to fund through taxation the roads they use and the pedestrian sidewalks that they don't, but still you insist that you're only interested in having people pay their own way.
Interesting.
To briefly answer some of your questions...
Do you think we, as a nation, ought to live within our means?
Yes, generally.
Do you think we ought not consume more than we can produce?
Depends on what you mean by that. We produce more aircraft than we use and consume far more coffee than we produce, but I see no problem, for instance, trading some of our airplanes for Colombian coffee. We should consume less total wealth than produce, but worldwide comparative advantages means that we shouldn't consume less of each and every commodity that we produce: it would be far less efficient not to trade with those who are able to produce coffee or any other commodity more economically.
Do you think we ought not consume more than we can produce sustainably?
No, actually. I don't see why a temporary or even one-time source of income should be ignored just because it isn't permanent. Truth is, sustainability is a meaningless term at the macro level, meant to invoke the idea of responsible living when it doesn't mean anything in particular. Holywood's film industry probably isn't sustainable in the long term because some new technology will probably change the rules of the game, and yet it's foolish not to use the wealth from that industry while that wealth is being produced.
And, in the very long term, even primitive agrarianism isn't sustainable because the sun will one day run out of fuel. (Even before then, an extinction-level event could occur, such as a catastrophic asteroid collision, and it is only the supposedly "unsustainable" industrialized economies that would have a chance to detect and actually avert that disaster.)
Do you agree that no one reasonably supports a wholly unregulated economy (ie, one in which there are no rules on businesses or individuals in the marketplace)?
There is a vast, vast difference between supporting rules that protect one's rights and establish the rule of law -- e.g., laws that criminalize outright fraud, theft, assault, and murder -- and price controls and other socialistic attempts to dictate what's produced.
If you ignore that distinction, then, yes, I support so-called "regulations" insofar as I support criminalizing theft, fraud, and murder. But it's idiotic to ignore that distinction.
Do you think we ought not, as a general rule, subsidize wealthy corporations?
I don't think we ought to subsidize anybody, generally.
But, on that subject, you invoke conservatism to oppose subsidizing particular groups, but you don't oppose subsidies in principle: instead, you support subsidies through public funding for mass transit.
As has been the case time and again, you invoke a principle or authority -- such as conservatism, limited government, the Constitution, or the Bible -- when doing so advances your agenda, but you're willing to abandon those things immediately the moment it becomes convenient to do so.
Well, I think that we all agree that some projects make more sense being paid for via taxation than everyone individually trying to buy something themselves. Roads, for instance. Shall we each purchase our own road to everywhere? How could we possibly do that?
ReplyDeleteIt makes sense that we pay for such things communally. It further makes sense that we have those using the end product (roads, for instance) pay for them.
The main reason I support using some of the money that we would save by having motorists begin paying their own way for a project such as mass transit is to offset the last 50+ years of public moneys being spent to subsidize motorists INSTEAD of mass transit.
But let's stop here a second: Are we agreeing that motorists should begin paying their own way? Set aside for a second the mass transit funding: Are we agreeing that motorists should pay their own way and for their own clean up?
IF we agree on this very basic idea, then suddenly gas prices have jumped another buck or two or five a gallon.
Then suddenly, fewer people are driving and there is (as there already is) more demand for mass transit.
Then suddenly, there is a pool of people there who can be charged for the usage of mass transit.
IF we begin (which has been my point all along) making motorists pay their actual costs, then the Market can do its job, demand for the personal auto will decrease, demand for mass transit will increase and there will be a source of funding for that mass transit.
So, are we agreeing that motorists should pay their own way? Even if it increases the cost of gas by $2 - $5 gallon?
when doing so advances your agenda, but you're willing to abandon those things immediately the moment it becomes convenient to do so.
ReplyDeleteFactually wrong for me. But it remains to be seen if it is factually wrong for you? Or is this another case of you calling me wrong for something that you gladly engage in?
I believe I'm quite consistent in my principles, but you're more than welcome to try to demonstrate otherwise.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you could show how only moral busybodies could support the traditional legal definition of marriage; you've repeatedly accused me of hypocrisy on this front but have yet to justify the accusation.
Perhaps you could explain how it's a betrayal of conservatism to oppose all subsidies as a general rule.
Either way, the Christian thing to do isn't to insinuate hypocrisy on my part: it is to point out an actual instance where I casually betray my stated beliefs.
I don't think I'm wrong in noting that you seem to invoke conservatism, for instance, as a rhetorical tool rather than a grounding philosophy, but at least I have the Christian honor and decency to make my charge explicit.
To further clarify: It is not my position that funding should always be paid for strictly by users. I think (along with Thomas Jefferson, for one) that sometimes it makes sense for the commonwealth that we all pay for something that doesn't necessarily benefit us all directly.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, Jefferson was a staunch supporter of public education, and for paying for it via the taxation of the wealthy. Doing so benefits society and, therefore, the wealthy.
Do you think that Jefferson was a socialist?
So, no, it is not my position that IN EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE, only users should pay for what they use. Rather, in specific situations where the actions of the users have NEGATIVE consequences, IF we're going to fund such actions with taxpayer dollars, we should make efforts that we should tax those taking part in the action with negative consequences.
In other words, users should pay for gov't work that has severely negative consequences in addition to positive consequences.
In the case of education, there are no severely negative consequences.
In the case of mass transit, there are no severely negative consequences.
In the case of the personal vehicle, there are.
In the first two cases, it is acceptable to me (and Jefferson) to have such funds come from general taxation. In the latter case, it makes sense to me that motorists pay their own way.
the Christian thing to do isn't to insinuate hypocrisy on my part: it is to point out an actual instance where I casually betray my stated beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI've already done that and you validated it with our comments earlier about gay marriage. As it is off-topic, I'll pass on further comment. You can email me or wait for the next time the topic comes up if you want to discuss that one further.
As to the topic at hand: IF you are saying that you oppose subsidies as a general rule BUT THEN are in favor of continued subsidization of motorists, then that would be an example of hypocrisy.
So you can help clarify this by answer the question: DO you support motorists paying their own way and ending subsidies to motorists (and therefore, the governmental encouragement of the personal auto as a policy)?
Do you support doing so by increasing gas prices to pay for that which motorists have been getting for free or do you have some other way of having motorists pay their own way?
Dan, if the details of your accusation are off-topic, so too was the original insinuation; and if you're going to make an insinuation in public, you shouldn't ask to be allowed to explain the details of the accusation in private.
ReplyDeleteAbout gas taxes, I would have no problem having road construction and maintenance funded primarily or even solely by gas taxes, even if that resulted in higher consumer prices.
But if doing so means that other tax revenues are no longer being used for roads, those revenues should be returned to the taxpayers through rate cuts for those other taxes.
And I also think that there is unnecessary government interference that has been artificially inflating gas prices -- such as bans on offshore drilling and unnecessary regulations that have prevented the construction of new gas refineries. That interference should be lifted, too.
Is it interference or protecting our natural resources? Would it be an interference if a neighbor wanted to drill for oil next to your property line?
ReplyDeleteSeeing as how we can't drill our way to oil independence - that will only come with reduced consumption - I see no great reason to allow oil companies to drill in our public waters. It's not theirs to drill and when there's a spill (and there always is) it will pollute all our waters.
I'm not 100% opposed to offshore drilling in public waterways, but someone would have to make a case to me why it makes sound fiscal and environmental sense. Just because the oil is there is not reason enough to say, "Okay, drill on."
As to your complaint about the gay marriage thing: You were the one who brought up the moral busybodies. I was merely pointing out that the moral busybodies were not limited to or even especially dominated by the Left. You are inconsistent in your position and I pointed it out.
ReplyDeleteEnough about that was said. I don't want to turn this into a discussion about gay marriage. You apparently don't see the inconsistency in your position, I think it blatantly hypocritical.
Enough said.
But if doing so means that other tax revenues are no longer being used for roads, those revenues should be returned to the taxpayers through rate cuts for those other taxes.
ReplyDeleteI'm very glad to see you agree that motorists should pay their own way. I think you also agree that we should end subsidies to oil and coal companies. Great.
Do you plan to begin pushing legislation and policy to that end or is this just a passive agreement?
If you're not actively working to end motorist welfare, I don't see any great problem with I should not actively promote funding mass transit using taxpayer dollars. You are, by your silence, endorsing spending our money on motorist welfare. I am, by my voice, endorsing spending money on mass transit, which truly benefits us all.
Dan, if you want to drop the issue of gay marriage in this thread, don't cast any parting shots. For all that you've written, you haven't explained what is "blatantly hypocritical" about my supporting the traditional definition of marriage.
ReplyDeleteIt's sad that I have to explain this to you, but politics requires compromise and prioritization. Restructuring the tax base for highway maintenance is not remotely near the top of my list of what's important, but that doesn't mean that I implicitly support the status quo. It just means that I think other issues are more important.
To suggest otherwise -- to suggest that political silence on an issue implies an endorsement of the status quo -- is juvenile. It's also inconsistent with your repeated demand that people judge you only by what you explicitly write. If you're willing to draw conclusions about others silence, e.g., by suggesting that they're "hiding something" if they don't answer your questions quickly enough for your liking, consistency and Christian decency requires you to allow others to reciprocate.
Unless you want others to draw negative conclusions about political positions that you don't actively support, you shouldn't use this rhetorical tool against others.
About your active support for alternative means of transportation, would you mind explaining how mass transit "truly benefits us all" in a way that doesn't apply to, say, interstate highways?
Mass transit gets people transported efficiently (as do cars, in differing degrees and manners) without the negative side of the personal auto.
ReplyDeleteThe personal auto solution:
Degrades our water
Degrades our air
Causes sprawl
Results in deaths and maimings
Increases costs of living (because of all the above)
All at a much greater scale than does mass transit. If everyone drives a car to get around, the air WILL be polluted (in toxic levels, at times), the ground and water WILL be polluted.
If everyone uses mass transit, this will not be the case in disturbing amounts.
This is why planning SUSTAINABLY is an important ideal. Both solutions are workable. One is sustainable and relatively healthy. The other is not.
Thanks for the answer, but I don't think mass transit actually is all that efficient in many cases, I think it's somewhat arrogant to say that reducing sprawl is a good thing -- some people like having large yards -- and I think you're overstating the costs of the automobile in terms of pollution and fatalities.
ReplyDeleteBut that's all somewhat beside the point.
You say that mass transit is a reason why "planning SUSTAINABLY is an important ideal".
First, I contend that sustainability is an empty term, impossible to define without invoking arbitrary, question-begging standards.
Second, I note that you think planning is important but fail to explain who you think should do the planning. The implicit answer to that question points, again, to your rather obvious statism.
But you're providing more substance to what policies you would actually support; reasonably, I could hardly ask for anything more. Thanks.
Who do you think should work on creating our laws? You and me or people with actual law degrees?
ReplyDeleteWho do you think should be building our roads - Dr. Bob, the internist or someone with a background in urban planning?
Who do you think should tend our public waters - Laura, the talk show host or someone with a background in biology or urban planning or some related field?
I think we the people decide what is a good direction for us to go as a nation. Then we elect representatives to legislate and lead us in those directions. Then they hire people with actual backgrounds in the given field to enact those directions and give us further feedback about what works and what doesn't.
What part of that do you have a problem with?
If you had studied a bit about urban planning and sprawl and transportation, you would know that sprawl is not just a function of people wanting to have large yards. In fact, in urban areas, sprawl is largely due to having a road network capable of allowing everyone to drive everywhere.
In urban settings, pavement (roads, bridges, highways, parking lots, etc) make up some 30-60% of land surface, depending on the city. Did you know that?
All of that impervious surface has many other negative effects, in addition to adding to costly sprawl problems. It contributes to run-off problems from our automobiles and toxins that we spray on our lawns so we have green, green grass. This in turn pollutes our waterways, making them unsafe to drink from, live in, fish from or wade in.
Did you know that?
If you didn't, it's okay, probably most people don't know that. It's why we have people who HAVE studied the topic making suggestions on what our policies should be.
Having experts in an area offer reasoned advice is not a bad thing. I don't want my alcoholic beverages (if I were a drinker) being mixed by a banker who knows nothing about mixing drinks and I don't want my medications being dispensed by the guy that cuts my grass.
You sound a bit like you're trying to smack of anti-intellectualism, Bubba. It's okay to get input from the informed. It's a good thing.
And you can contend that sustainability is arbitrary, but that does not make it so. In reality, some practices are more just, more moral, more practical and more likely to work over time than other practices.
ReplyDeleteWe CAN farm by adding petrochemicals to our land, shipping food across the world using petroleum, wrapping that produce in petroleum-based plastics and selling it at underpriced rates. We can do that FOR A WHILE. But then, petroleum runs lower, costs go up and then what? Well, if we're dependent upon that petrol-based solution, we're rather screwed.
Why? Because it's not sustainable over time.
Somethings we can't do forever. Those things are not sustainable. Is it okay to do them for a while? Sure.
Is it wise to base a whole global economy on that? No.
Why? Because it's not sustainable over time.
I'm always shocked at the ignorance surrounding topics such as planning and development. This influences so much of our daily lives yet we never seem to discuss it.
ReplyDeleteI'm reading a book about the Bronx. This borough changed dramatically from the poor planning in the 60s.
and I think you're overstating the costs of the automobile in terms of pollution and fatalities.
ReplyDeleteWhat part?
* The average driver now spends the equivalent of nearly a full workweek each year stuck in traffic.
* Congestion costs Americans $78 billion a year in wasted fuel and lost time–up 39 percent since 1990.
* 42,000 people are killed in auto crashes each year, and 3 million are injured.
source
Or:
* Americans spend $200 million a day building and rebuilding the
nation's roads. Gas taxes and other user fees covered only 60
percent of the $33.3 billion spendt on building, improving and
repairing roads in 1989.
* Also not covered by user fees is the $68 billion spent annually on services such as highway patrols, traffic management, and traffic accident policework.
source
Or:
"You should know that bicycling improvement construction costs run about $70,000 a mile; for 12-foot shared paths about $128,000 a mile; 5-foot bicycle lanes about $189,000 a mile; 5-foot paved shoulders on rural roads about $102,000 a mile. You should also know that one mile of urban freeway costs on average $46 million a mile."
~Congressman James Oberstar
Or:
"Without question the most destructive agent of social disintegration, ecological contamination, poisoning of people and environment, waste of energy and even homicide (outstripping violent crime by more than two to one) is the automobile."
~Richard Register, Urban Ecologist
Or:
"The World Health Organization reports that 3 million people now die each year from the effects of air pollution. This is three times the 1 million who die each year in automobile accidents. A study published in The Lancet in 2000 concluded that air pollution in France, Austria, and Switzerland is responsible for more than 40,000 deaths annually in those three countries. About half of these deaths can be traced to air pollution from vehicle emissions.
In the United States, traffic fatalities total just over 40,000 per year, while air pollution claims 70,000 lives annually. U.S. air pollution deaths are equal to deaths from breast cancer and prostate cancer combined. This scourge of cities in industrial and developing countries alike threatens the health of billions of people."
Or:
"Death and injury on the roads is the world's most neglected public health issue. Almost as many people die in road accidents - 1.2 million a year - as are killed by malaria or tuberculosis. Around 50 million are injured. Some 85% of these accidents take place in developing countries.
The poor get hurt much more often than the rich, as they walk or cycle or travel in overloaded buses. The highest death rate is among children walking on the roads.
The annual economic cost to developing countries, in lost productivity alone, is $65-$100bn, roughly the same as the amount they receive in foreign aid."
source
I could go on. Do you really doubt the numbers or do you just think they're not significant enough to justify a change of policy?
Thanks for the note, Ben. It does pay the populace to be informed about our decisions and policies.
ReplyDeleteI think the personal auto culture is particularly tricky issue because, as I've noted, no one is purposely setting out to kill or harm. No one is setting out to pollute the air, and perhaps most don't even know that cars pollute our water! ("How's that possible? I don't drive in the water!")
Further, any one person is not the problem. One person driving does not pose a significant pollution or policy or health problem. It's ALL of us together. Civilization, as the point of the post was suggesting. It's an unintended consequence, as Marshall noted we often fail to account for.
And then there is the whole freedom of choice thing - we don't want to start taking away people's right to drive or choose to own a car, it's against our American values, and rightly so.
So, how do we balance our right of choice against larger global and community damage if we allow unfettered choice?
Smart, reasonable, well-understood regulation, seems to me.
We don't let people decide themselves what goods they can take for free or who they can beat up. We have regulations - laws - against such behavior because it harms others and takes away others' freedoms. We should do no less when it comes to other policies that cause harm.
Ignorance of a harm is no reason to allow folk to do it.
A couple of other points:
ReplyDeleteIn the car/mass transit debate, a traffic jam slows traffic, a problem on the rails, and no one's going anywhere.
I don't know about where Dan lives, but the Chicago Transit Authority is always strapped, and Michael Medved laments the Seattle mass transit system constantly. Plus, with mass transit, the new community created to manage it is now a civilization unto itself. The riders are now victims of the manifestations of corruption that may appear as that beauracracy grows ever larger to accomodate all those who no longer use cars. The CTA has it's reputation and that's only for one city. Try that across the country.
In both the auto industry and in city planning, environmental concerns have altered the way business is done. And it's been altered by free market pressures as the consumer asks for cars with better and cleaner fuel efficiency. The impact on the surrounding area is of greater concern than it has been in the past in developing new towns. Just a quick example or two how the free market is doing what Dan wants laws and regulations to do.
What laws and regulations are you talking about?
ReplyDeleteWhat I've advocated is the ENDING of gov't interference that has encouraged the personal auto.
I've advocated motorists paying for the roads, infrastructure and bureaucracy that they need to be able to drive.
I've MOSTLY talked about ENDING gov't interference, policy-making that encourages driving and people paying their own way.
Are these the laws and rules that you oppose, Marshall?
Shall we also subsidize factories that dump toxins in our water? How about people who illegally burn trash in the city - shall we give them tax rebates so it's easier for them to pollute?
ReplyDeleteWho all are you in favor of propping up using taxpayer dollars? What sins are you thinking we ought to continue to push as public policy?
Sowell said:
ReplyDeleteThe presumed irrationality of the public is a pattern running through many, if not most or all, of the great crusades of the anointed in the twentieth century
This is true. I just don't see that these crusades assuming either the logical or moral irrationality of the public is a more common thread in so-called liberal "crusades" than it is in so-called conservative ones.
I've certainly nowhere here said anything about the presumed irrationality of anyone. Nor do I think it.
As I have stated before, I have confidence in the people to do as well as we can. Not perfectly, but better than an elite few (whether that elite few are the self-anointed moral crusaders of the Right or a few intellectual elites or a few governmental elites).
That being said, I don't want a bartender or a doctor to be the one to inspect our bridges and certify them safe for crossing. I want a qualified engineer for that job.
I don't want The People making decisions on individual's medical or lifestyle decisions that don't effect anyone else.
I believe that the People HAVE said that we value highly living within our environmental and fiscal means. I am merely wanting our gov't to reflect that which the people want.
You should trust freedom. But you don't...
ReplyDeleteI do. But that does not mean I trust "freedom" to the point that I believe people are free to kill or steal or speed or drink and drive.
That I trust freedom does not mean that I want anarchy.
And at least with my limitations on freedom (and we all believe in limitations on freedom - the whole "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" thing), I'm mostly limiting it to you are relatively free to do what you want UNTIL it starts harming others.
With the moral busybodies of the Right, they want the freedom to tell people how to live, what to drink or smoke, etc. In other words, THEY are the true moral busybodies, they wish to regulate actions that harm no one.
A pox on them.
Marshall said:
ReplyDeleteThese "encouraging" policies to which you refer you have backwards. People want the freedom to move about as they see fit. They want the freedom to create wealth for their families.
I don't know what you're talking about. I've not advocated anything that would infringe on anyone's freedom to move as they see fit or create wealth as they see fit as long as they pay their own way and it's not unethical/illegal.
You all seem to read what some people say and assume they mean stuff that they just have not said. What's up with that?
You don't really think that asking people to pay their own way is an infringement of liberty, do you?
...Not the sin of taking my money and giving to someone else for whom there is no guarantee they are in any way deserving. As far as polluters, I'm simply not in favor of forcing changes
ReplyDeleteHere would be another example of you citing things that I have not advocated. WHERE do you think I have advocated taking money from one person to give to another?
And do you not realize the irony of saying you are opposed to such action and then following that up by saying you're opposed to expecting polluters to pay their own way instead of charging their pollution off on others?
Is this not what you're saying, in effect:
"I am opposed to the government taking money from one person and giving it to another. However, if a corporation wants to pollute a stream (which costs people and places real money), then I am opposed to the gov't saying they can't."
Do you fail to recognize the inconsistency in such a position?
It's like this:
Company A makes widgets.
When they make them, they have X amount of garbage generated from the process.
To dispose of that garbage responsibly costs $x.
If they build the price of disposal into their widget, the widgets cost $5x.
BUT, if they dump the waste into the stream outback, then they can only charge $4x and thereby they are able to sell more.
HOWEVER, if they dump their waste, then the stream is polluted and has to be cleaned up by the city at a cost of $4x (if they can clean it up at all).
Additionally, the folk who used to fish the stream and made a living selling fish can no longer do so. This loses $Y amount of dollars to the local economy (and the people now out of jobs).
ADDITIONALLY, people who used to make a living by promoting tourism along the stream can no longer do so, because the stream is now polluted. This costs the local economy $Z.
WHY, the Law of Creation asks, in the HELL would we allow Corporation A to take away the right livelihood of these other businesses? And WHY would some people call it a good thing that they pollute and charge the expense off on others so that they may personally profit?
It is against the Laws of Nature and against Common Reason.
Following up on some other comments from Marshall:
ReplyDeleteI think the argument for second hand smoke has been less than convincing but we're told where and when we can light up.
Well, that you are not convinced does not a case make or break. If the People have read what the experts have to say (pro and con) and come to the conclusion that they don't want to breathe second hand smoke for safety reasons, would you stand opposed to the will of the People?
I understand you'd disagree, and that is your right, but I think that the People have a right and responsibility to make determinations about what is healthy/safe/at-risk and make policy accordingly.
Do some on the Left go too far at times? Sure. But at least in their case, it is over legitimate issues of concerns for safety and health.
Compare that to the issues that the Right tend to be moral busybodies on - people's sex lives and drug abuse. These are personal decisions that for the vastly most part harm no one but the ones involved.
The Right - especially the Religious Right - tend to take the moral busybody stance on this and we've already agreed with CS Lewis that those moral busybodies are tyrannical.
Or perhaps you didn't. Bubba and I agreed with Lewis' quote (although he then hypocritically maintained the right to be a moral busybody on issues he wanted to involved himslef). But perhaps you, Marshall, disagree with Lewis' quote? I don't know.
Boy, talk about reading into comments that which isn't there!
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, to cut to the chase, I don't believe you can find too many examples of corporations that blatantly dumped waste into rivers anymore. I won't say it doesn't happen, but regs and laws are already in place to deal with it and from there, enforcement is the only issue. People nowadays demand responsible waste management from manufacturers and they have been responding. If that ain't happening fast enough for you, then you're probably ignoring the work required to do so.
That said, I don't see the connection between taxing me and giving my dough to others and polluters and what connection you've sought to make is slim. In addition, you have in the past spoken in favor of welfare, or serving the poor and getting the dough to do so from wealthier people. No. I do not have the quote, but I don't think you can honestly deny it.
Regarding 2nd hand smoke: We choose to believe or disbelieve for a variety of reasons. When Bush presented his case for going to Iraq, folks like yourself claimed he was lying. When the case was made 2nd hand smoke, folks like you swallow it without question. Fine. At some point I'd like to see the data that says that you're gonna die or even get the sniffles because I'm sitting two or three rows in front of you at Wrigley Field enjoying a Camel. One needn't be a scientist to know that's nonsense. I would also say the alleged death rate from 2nd hand smoke is a load as well. Sure, people can band together and vote away the privelege of smoking anywhere they want. But just as some separationists don't want laws based on unproven Scripture, I don't want laws based on BS science. There are other reasons to ban smoking that have nothing to do with bogus claims of second hand smoke.
So it's not a legitimate health concern. At the same time, the left ignores the health concerns related to fornication in all its forms. It's far easier to accuse the right of being busybodies. Health issues eventually impact the community as it overburdens the health care system. So even if a few who engage in dangerous behaviors come out unscathed, many others require some level of medical care directly related to the behaviors. It's good sense to oppose legislation that enables said behaviors.
Back to the car and road thing. My point is the whole idea of government subsidizing drivers. Taxes already go to roads and such infrastructure maintainence is the job of governments. Everybody pays for roads through taxation because everybody benefits by their existence.
Marshall, you're mistaken in oh so many ways here, it's hard to know where to begin.
ReplyDeleteSo it's not a legitimate health concern.
?
You DO know, don't you, Marshall, that just because you say something, does not make it so? Should we take the word of Marshall that smoking does not disturb others or cause health problems or should we listen to actual doctors and scientists who study the matter?
And setting aside the health issues, it is STILL irresponsible to smoke on people who don't like to be smoked upon. We can't spit upon people just because we like to spit and we can't smoke wherever just because we like to smoke.
Your right to swing your fist...
My point is the whole idea of government subsidizing drivers. Taxes already go to roads and such infrastructure maintainence is the job of governments. Everybody pays for roads through taxation because everybody benefits by their existence.
Your point is what?
Right now, motorists only pay a percentage of their way. Gas taxes only pay for some 70% of infrastructure costs - and that does not get into the other ways that gov't subsidizes motorists, oil companies, auto companies etc. I'm advocating that motorists pay their own way fully.
Are you opposed to that? You think motorists (oil companies, etc) ought to be subsidized or do you agree that they ought to pay their own way? Fully?
As to your comment that everybody enjoys benefits from roads, everyone should pay. Do you think the same thing for mass transit (the more people using mass transit, the less traffic, which helps motorists as well as mass transit riders), public education, child welfare, etc?
I don't disagree fully with your idea that some things we all benefit from and therefore we all ought to pay, but usually many conservatives do.
Finally, you said this:
Boy, talk about reading into comments that which isn't there!
But it is not at all clear what in the world you're talking about. What did I read into your comments that wasn't there?
"...that takes serious, deliberate intent and planning and cooperation. "
ReplyDeleteCertainly NOT the rash changes demanded by those who have fallen for the trumped-up war on weather, Dan.
You contradict yourself and don't even realize it, my friend.
"You DO know..."etc.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is merely that: my opinion. However, I hear of how many people die each minute due to second hand smoke and I have to say that I think it's a pumped up lie. How do they know exactly that it was second hand smoke above any other pollutant the person took in together with the lack of good nutrition necessary for a strong immune system. With a strong immune system, one could get away with smoking a few butts a day regularly. The human body is just not that fragile.
You speak of the will of the people, but ignore the will of bar and restuarant owners who didn't want to go smokeless, nor the patrons who didn't want to stand in the cold to have a smoke with their dinner. Those who don't like the smoke weren't forced to go there, and other entrepreneurs opened bars and restuarants banning ciggies. The owners of these establishments are not, or should not be, required to hire those who don't like smoke. Where does the prospective employee get off making demands. If the guy can't get employees to work in a smoke filled environment, he'll change the rules.
I don't condone, nor did I ever engage in, blowing smoke onto people. But if a place permits smoking, non-smokers have no right to bitch. And outdoors, stand upwind. If the situation calls for it, most smokers will accomodate the non-smoker. Sometimes it needed to go the other way as well.
"Right now, motorists only pay..."etc.
Any taxes to the feds, state or local municipalities go to infrastructure, or should, not just gas taxes. As I said, it's the duty of these governmental bodies to attend to infrastructure. In fact, gas taxes for roads are a result of the government mishandling of tax monies and expenditures on things for which they should not be involved.
Government subsidies to oil companies reflect the dependency society has on the product. It is involved in so many disparate areas that a halt to production, distribution or refinement could be crippling. I don't like the feds giving handouts as a rule, but I'm not going to say that it should stop in every case without a full examination of the why's and wherefor's. Some things are obvious. Other things aren't.
"What did I read into your comments that wasn't there?"
Skip it. There's too much to re-read to determine for my own self, at this point in time, what prompted that comment. I'll endeavor in the future to illustrate such comments with an example immediately.