The Automobile Subsidy
in [Drive]
|
From: hancock4 on 9 Nov 2009 19:55 On Nov 5, 12:12 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I have to wonder if the people who write the above have ever written > their so-called representives. Eventually one learns it's pretty > pointless. Especially when said representives vote entirely different > than nearly everyone who wrote and called them to express their views. Actually, our representatives have been quite responsive to community input. In one example, our tax formula was unfair and we petitioned to change it to a more equitable amount. It was done. In another example, we had opinions on how to use a certain parcel land. It was done. Responsible citizens are invited to join special committees or boards and help make policy. _Anybody_ with a reasonable platform can run for and win entry level political office and be a part of the process.
From: rshersh on 9 Nov 2009 20:21 On Nov 9, 7:11 pm, John David Galt <j...(a)diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: > Scott in SoCal wrote: > > [Excerpt from "Suburban Nation" by Andres Duany and Elizabeth > > Plater-Zybeck, pp. 94-7.] > > Why do you keep quoting those progress-hating liars? this from the idiot that said the following: tunnels should be built for freeways in SF no matter the cost and earthquakes brilliant buy welfare recipients a car and shut down public transit no matter that alot don't have dl's and do you really want them driving on the public hwys you are an idiot that represents the idiocy of the reason foundation
From: Brent on 9 Nov 2009 20:57 On 2009-11-10, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Nov 5, 12:12�am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> I have to wonder if the people who write the above have ever written >> their so-called representives. Eventually one learns it's pretty >> pointless. Especially when said representives vote entirely different >> than nearly everyone who wrote and called them to express their views. > > Actually, our representatives have been quite responsive to community > input. that's nice. > In one example, our tax formula was unfair and we petitioned to change > it to a more equitable amount. It was done. Nobody even understands the formula in cook county IL. > In another example, we had opinions on how to use a certain parcel > land. It was done. Government telling someone what to do with their land. Nice. > Responsible citizens are invited to join special committees or boards > and help make policy. Try writing Mr. Obama. He was an Il senator once ya know. > _Anybody_ with a reasonable platform can run for and win entry level > political office and be a part of the process. So to be left alone one needs to gain political protection by being elected to office?
From: Mark Mathu on 10 Nov 2009 00:37 On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:40:55 -0800, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>You are absolutely correct. Instead of taking our money while our >>>backs are turned, we would all pay that money directly and be fully >>>conscious of every dollar we spend. The fundamental change would be >>>this: roads, parking, highway patrol, etc. would no longer appear to >>>be "free goods." People could finally make the correct economic >>>decisions about which modes of transport to employ and when to employ >>>them. The transportation system would be free to evolve naturally into >>>an optimally balanced, optimally efficient one. No more >>>all-you-can-eat buffet; no more tragedy of the commons. >> >>We would send land transportation back to where it was in the dark >>ages. > >You mean the way we did with that other 19th century technology: the >automobile? I don't consider the automobile to be "dark ages" technology. Public involvement in land transportation (planning, building, operating) has played a big part in commerce getting to the point where it is today, and hence raising our standard of living well above what we had 1500 years ago.
From: Brent on 10 Nov 2009 00:57
On 2009-11-10, Mark Mathu <mark(a)mathu.com> wrote: > On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:40:55 -0800, Scott in SoCal ><scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>>>You are absolutely correct. Instead of taking our money while our >>>>backs are turned, we would all pay that money directly and be fully >>>>conscious of every dollar we spend. The fundamental change would be >>>>this: roads, parking, highway patrol, etc. would no longer appear to >>>>be "free goods." People could finally make the correct economic >>>>decisions about which modes of transport to employ and when to employ >>>>them. The transportation system would be free to evolve naturally into >>>>an optimally balanced, optimally efficient one. No more >>>>all-you-can-eat buffet; no more tragedy of the commons. >>> >>>We would send land transportation back to where it was in the dark >>>ages. >> >>You mean the way we did with that other 19th century technology: the >>automobile? > > > I don't consider the automobile to be "dark ages" technology. > > Public involvement in land transportation (planning, building, > operating) has played a big part in commerce getting to the point > where it is today, and hence raising our standard of living well above > what we had 1500 years ago. It may be that our standard of living increased inspite of what the public planers did. They may have actually done harm to what would have been had some different system developed. Communist nations have had some great but empty highway systems that ended up hurting the standard of living of the people further. It is only after changes elsewhere in those nations that the roads become useful to more than a few. |