From: Stephen Sprunk on
hancock4(a) wrote:
> On Nov 4, 1:11 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)> wrote:
>> Lacking any real arguments to make I see. Your attacks on me don't
>> change the manipulations and increases in power of the supreme court
>> which are facts of history.
> I did not attack you.
> I attacked your anti-government rants. I stand by my position that if
> your rants were true, they'd have come and taken you away long ago,
> using the many powers and techniques you claim they have.

OTOH, if they did come and get him, that would lend credence to his
arguments. By leaving him alone, they let him make a fool of himself.
It's not like loony on USENET poses any actual threat to the shadowy
figures behind the curtain, if in fact they do exist


Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
From: Kenny McCormack on
In article <hMydnUt-JJXULWzXnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d(a)>,
Matthew Russotto <russotto(a)> wrote:
>In article <hcppor$5jn$2(a)>,
>Kenny McCormack <gazelle(a)> wrote:
>>The real problem with car ownership is that most of the costs are sunk
>>costs (aka, fixed costs) - that is, not "marginal". The marginal costs
>>of me going on a trip are virtually zero, so there is no disincentive to
>>my doing so.
>This is true, but not at all a subsidy.

I don't think I clamed that it was.

>Mostly what it does is make
>transit use (even at heavily subsidized rates) uneconomical for a car

Agreed. But I like transit and use it when it makes sense - which is to
say, when you live in one of the two cities in the US (to the best of my
knowledge) where the system density is high enough to make it work.

Clarification of "to make it work": I mean, outside of normal to-and-fro
the office commuting. I have, in fact, very rarely used transit for
commuting. I've used it a lot for recreation.

>>That major costs (which are, as I say, not determined much or at all by
>>how much I drive) are:
>> 1) Purchasing/maintaining the vehicle
>> 2) Taxes (as the original article made clear - a lot of tax dollars
>> go to subsidizing private vehicle ownership and usage)
>Said tax dollars being mostly taken from drivers in the first place.

Right. And that's the whole point - that it is a fixed cost.
You cannot control it by driving less.

From: Gary V on
On Nov 3, 11:11 pm, hanco...(a) wrote:
> On Nov 3, 10:17 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)> wrote:
> > The costs of driving are mostly on the drivers. The bulk of what goes to
> > non-drivers to pay are things like the roads in front of their houses
> > and businesses who choose not charge separately for parking*.
> And things like lost property taxes when a new or expanded road is
> built on what was once private productive land.

But the land surrounding the new road will now become more developed,
leading to a higher tax base.
From: rshersh on
On Nov 4, 5:52 pm, Gary V <gjvos...(a)> wrote:

> But the land surrounding the new road will now become more developed,
> leading to a higher tax base.


if that were true every county beside an exit on the interstates would
be flush with cash

From: Mark Mathu on
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:31:33 -0800, Scott in SoCal
<scottenaztlan(a)> 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