Slashdot Mirror
Telco Sues City For Plan To Roll Out Own Broadband
Syngularity writes 'MaximumPC is featuring an article about one broadband provider's decision to sue the city of Monticello, Minnesota after residents passed a referendum to roll out their own fiber optic system. TDS Telecommunications had earlier denied the city's request for the company to provide fiber optic service. During the ensuing legal battle, which prevented the citizens from following through with their plans, TDS Telecommunications took the opportunity to roll out a fiber system.'
Next time the town should be more careful about granting exclusive contracts.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Problem solved. Actually I bet just the threat alone would be enough to make TDS fall on its knees and obey the government.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
So you're against public roads then.
Except in this case the citizens *asked* the government to perform this service (hence the part about the referendum). This isn't the government "dabbling" in other services. This is a government doing exactly what it's citizens are asking it to.
...and have a judge who throws the suit out, on the grounds of it attempting to stifle competition.
Seriously, corporations shouldn't be allowed to do this sort of thing.
This is why I hate the legal system. Lawyers aren't the weak link.
Judges are.
We have 17 year olds, here in Australia, who can kill people, and get 2.5-3 years for it, in a youth training centre. The police do their job. The lawyers do theirs. Every other part of the system works; except the judges.
Unlike most people, I don't have such a big issue with lawyers; because I say to any judge who reads this, that I know where the fault with the system really is. It isn't with them, judges. It's with you.
Indeed Thomas Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he new we had public mail service. Oh wait... And of course our socialist fire department.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
This story has been on slashdot before.
Did you READ the article, douchington, or do your Ayn Rand superpowers render that unnecessary? The private company refused to provide a service that the residents wanted, so said residents passed a referendum to do it themselves. The private company turned around and used the court system to hold up the process while it built a system, and is now butthurt because the city might offer competition.
And yes, TJ is rolling over in his grave - because idiots like you try to invoke his name.
These people wanted fat pipes, but private enterprise wasn't going to give it to them. So like any free group of people willing to pay the costs necessary to get what they wanted, they started gathering the money necessary to do it themselves.
This is capitalism at its finest.
"His name was James Damore."
The free market works! The solution to all of the USA's problems!
Is there such a thing as a 'local monopoly'? If there isn't, the gov. should just pass a city law against it, then counter-sue the company on those grounds - then give them a choice between shutting up or shipping out.
Yeah, right. So, in government all people are injected with the evil serum, so they only make more useless jobs for themselves and plotting the end to all "free business" (R), and in the big corporations all workers are altruistical avatars of "the Free Spirit of Commerce" (TM), 24/7 caring for welfare of ordinary customer?
Ehhhmm... pass the joint, I want that shit too.
For too long now, fire departments across the United States have been SOCIALIST organizations, resulting in TAXES on the American people.
FACT: Most Americans never use the socialized services of the fire department. We have the best fire departments in the world in the US, but that doesn't mean that anyone (even non-US citizens) should be able to dial up and have fires put out, etc. There are private companies (Halliburtion, Etc.) who could step in tomorrow and take over every fire department in America and charge the consumer directly.
This is AMERICA. NO FREE FIRE SAFETY.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in asbestos and carrying a fire hose."
This is THE new political movement in America. The Birther movement and The Teabagger movement have FAILED. We are The Flamer movement, and we are succeeding at tearing down ALL forms Socialism - starting with our Fire Departments.
Please tell everyone you know about this group.
When it comes to ObamaFireCare, remember, we are: Taxed Enough Already For American Red Truck Socialism.
"This is America. Pay to Spray." - Member Susan Weinberg
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
It appears that TDS sells physical videos that we can buy. Also modems. Steal them. Working together and using our power as consumers we could kill this giant (i.e. bankrupt the corporation), same way we did to Circuit City.
Aside -
These TDS idiots charge $35/month for 750k DSL! Dang. I only pay $15 for mine. TDS is not only dishonest but also greedy.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The Citizens of Monticello request several times to TDS Telecommunications that they upgrade the cities connection. They kept saying "Soon, we'll get to it" That is when the citizens, not the government, passed a referendum to install a city run fiber network.
It was only after the city started installing that TDS Telecommunications sued the city and tied them up in a prolong court battle, which prevented them from continuing their install. During that time they started laying fiber of their own, by the time the city won the law suit TDS Telecommunications had completed their project and now offer 50mb to every household there for about 50$ a month.
I guess this just shows if you want your ISP to upgrade your connection, pass a law to get the city to do it and force their hand.
At least public roads are directly funded by those who use them (drivers). If you don't drive, then you don't pay the "use fee" collected at the pumps.
That should be true of all government-provided systems. You want to send a letter: you pay the cost of the stamp. You want to ride the subway or metro train: you pay the ticket. You want to build a house in Nowhere, Virginia: You pay the installation costs. There should not be any subsidization for these services by non-users. Not one single dime.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I used to live in a Tri-City area outside of Chicago. The three towns were going to go in on a municipal internet system that would have provided TV, Phone, Internet, over fiber-optic.
Comcast did a massive advertisement campaign against the system and how if it failed we would foot the bill. They also had techncians out for three weeks straight installing new lines across the town. When it came to vote in my city of the three city's it failed 6000 votes to like 7500 votes, the funny part is, if the 6000 people who voted yes bought into the system and the system lasted for 5 years it would have paid itself and would have become self-sustaining.
Municipality can run water pipes, sewer pipes, and gas pipes.
Please tell me why the Internet pipe is any different from these other pipes.
That's fine. Their town; their decision.
But rather than have government do the job, I think I would simply called Verizon on the phone and said, "We want FiOS and and have the 70% of the population willing to buy it." Corporations have the expertise and experience to do the job, which politicians lack, so let corporations handle it.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
My company actually did some of the design for this. Now I know why they wanted such a fast turn around time on it.
There is a war going on for your mind.
This doesn't relate to the article, but I can't not respond to the parent.
You're complaining about the youth offenders system in Australia? On /. ? People complaining about short jail sentences, particularly for young offenders was why I had to stop reading the forums on Canadian news sites. Canada and Australia both have extremely low crime rates because the criminal justice system has reasonable sentences, especially for young people. I'm tired of the "lock them up and throw away the key" mentality; it focuses on vengeance rather than prevention.
The role of the criminal justice system is to make streets a safer place, not to make you feel better after crimes have been committed. If you make it impossible for offenders to find jobs or otherwise become part of society again you limit their options and increase the likelihood of a re-offense. Certainly a strong punishment is necessary for the enforcement of laws but longer sentences are not the solution to crime; they're a simple campaign line for politicians because everyone loves to hear it. The only important factor is making sure that the fewest possible crimes occur.
I plan to move to Australia later this year. Don't fuck it up before I get there. (It already seems to be the only developed country with worse internet service than Canada, which makes me sad, although the weather looks better.)
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
Sheeesh....
The problem with this is that gas taxes do not even come close to covering the costs of building and maintaining the road network. Public roads are heavily subsidized.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
has had a municipal fiber-to-the-premises system for the past two years. I doubt I would have been alive long enough to see FIOS rolled out, particularly since the outfit that Verizon dumped^H^H^H^H^H^H sold their landline infrastructure to, Fairpoint, has just filed bankruptcy. Comcast, the only other game in town, has been howling to the state regulators about the sheer UNFAIRNESS of a publically-owned body actually implementing something that they had no intention of providing (in their neverending quest at maximizing shareholder value). Most recently, certain parties (first two guesses don't count) have been agitating to have the city shut down Burlington Telecom over perceived financial malfeasance. After all, it's downright UN-AMERICAN to have such an important piece of infrastructure exist without money flowing into corporate coffers!
ever heard of satire? BTW: Whooossh!
if the city and residents want to really make a point and add insult to financial injury, they should simply ignore TDS' offerings and go ahead and build their own system, making TDS suffer the embarrassment of being screwed over for not taking the town's needs/wishes seriously as well as throwing away however many millions of dollars due to nothing more than ego.
Can you imagine what this country would look like if we had treated paved roads like we have treated much of the rest of our infrastructure (i.e. only allowing private companies to build and maintain them). Does anyone honestly think we would have an interstate system today (or even standardized road signs) if we had followed that model?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
This is ridiculous, there should have been a "stay", "restraining order", or whatever, to stop either party from building infrastructure until a ruling could be made.
But preventing the Telco from doing it would be *gasp* SOCIALISM!!!!!11!1!1
The problem with this is that gas taxes do not even come close to covering the costs of building and maintaining the road network. Public roads are heavily subsidized.
So you want higher gas taxes?
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
I think I would rather have a fire department paid for by my taxes than having this sort of thing occur:
Nameless person: Help my house is burning down!
Fire department: We can help we take Visa or Mastercard.
Nameless person: Hands the fire department person a Visa.
Fire department: Sorry, that card was denied.
Nameless person: What about my house?
Fire department: Sorry, no pay no spray.
Nameless person watches their house burn down.
Cannot find REALITY.SYS. Universe halted.
If you don't drive, then you don't pay the "use fee" collected at the pumps.
Your kidding, right? Do you ride the bus? Buses run on Diesel (mostly.) which pays road tax. Do you purchase food at local stores? Guess how it got there.. You pay more as a driver, but everybody helps pay for it. But mostly, Look at water.
You know, other easy to make comments aside, you have no idea how much we take water for granted in the US. The vast majority of Americans are given very clean drinking water, and their waste is treated, by the government. We take that for granted, but many illnesses that used to be very common are exceedingly rare in the US. People talk about bottled water, and how much it makes for the companies, but its usage pales in comparison to a single days output from a municipal system. If you want to see the errors in your very conservative logic, go read about south America, where several nations (bolivia comes to mind) have "sold" the exclusive rights to make drinking water to a private, profit driven company. Make sure you read about the riots, protests, cost increases, and even how some protesters were killed. Meanwhile, we take it for granted here.
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Gas taxes cover the costs on repairs, and the more expensive the fuel. The more expensive gas, the more the input revenue is. You know what the real problem is? All that money is put into general revenue, not for roads. So instead of paying directly for what it should be. That gas tax money is paying for in most cases education, or services.
Om, nomnomnom...
Yes. As long as Private roads don't have a monopoly on the Path from A to B, Public roads are unnecessary.
If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
what happnes when you dont drive - dont pay for the road and you have a heart attack does the ambalance have to drive cross country because YOU never contributed to a road in your life?
Should someone come and take all the pavement and street lighting etc up at your your house?
... on what grounds TDS sued the town? This is not explained in the article.
False. The amount of money collected from gasoline/diesel taxes *far exceed* the amount spent on annual maintenance. Where does the excess go? I don't about your state, but in mine the gas taxes are used to subsizde the Light Rail trains. I've sat in the State House and seen the vote for myself - money taken from the road fund and used to build a new rail line from Tysons Corner to Towson.
The senior minority leader had a fit, saying it was a misappropriation of funds, but of course he was unable to stop it.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
At least public roads are directly funded by those who use them (drivers). If you don't drive, then you don't pay the "use fee" collected at the pumps.
Unlike the telcos' infrastructure, which was entirely paid out of AT&T and Comcast's pockets without a dime of public money... oh, wait...
Right and if your are not a victim of crime then you shouldn't pay for the police, courts or jails. If the polluted water or air isn't passing through your sources then you shouldn't have to clean it up or pay to enforce environmental laws to make the guilty parties pay - assuming they are still in business, that you can find them and that they have the means to pay for the damage. If thugs go after some ethnic group that isn't yours you should not have to pay for their protection. If some indigent gets sick or insured you shouldn't have to pay for their care. Let them die if they don't have the money. Children too. If children are stupid enough to have poor or dysfunctional parents, screw em. Let them all suffer and die. Maybe they can get jobs in the child porn industry. Yeah. My birth and education were paid for by the citizens of my parents generation but now that I'm an adult I can just walk away from it all. Who needs government to force us to help people. We can rely on the charity of all the suckers who are willing to pay and if that doesn't work then too bad - unless it's me that needs the help.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
That's fine. Their town; their decision.
But rather than have government do the job, I think I would simply called Verizon on the phone and said, "We want FiOS and and have the 70% of the population willing to buy it." Corporations have the expertise and experience to do the job, which politicians lack, so let corporations handle it.
Preventing the creation of a governmental company, no matter what line of business, is anti capitalistic. Sometimes something is of the collective interest of everybody, then, in general, there are no differences. When everbody agrees (more or less) is when you create a governmental postal system, fire dept., health care, roads, and in this case communication. There should always be private alternatives and they should never be banned, as that would be anti capitalistic as well. But adding the artificial constrain on a market which means prohibiting the formation of a governmental company does not foster sane capitalism. There should be fair grounds though, but that's easily arranged.
I am the lawn!
This fiber must have been installed somewhere and it must be on public terrain, no? Than why in the world the city have granted the permission for that company to install the fiber? I mean, most telco cable runs in/on public utilities (sewer, terrain, phone pole). They are granted a permission to use it. Why can't it be revoked? Fiber pipe should be public utility. If a company would decide to run water to every house and sue the city for doing so too, would it be more capitalism-correct?
Huge difference in what you're trying to compare. One is the government providing a service, the other is denying human rights.
I'm as free market as anybody, but wiring is infrastructure, and I don't have a problem with infrastructure being provided by the government. Let the local government, through the power utility, run fiber optic to everyplace that receives power, unless a private company provides a 100MB connection to the house for less than $20. That 100MB line should have low enough latency to provide live TV and VOIP phone connections. If the private companies won't build a better product than can be provided publicly, they shouldn't expect protection from competition.
as the FraUDulent money traders attempt to position themselves for any event, guess who gets left out of the calculations?
very similar to the last days of nazi germany.
no matter, the lights are coming up all over now, & despite all the plans of the corepirate nazi illuminati, there is no where left to hide.
The best rail networks in the world are govt run systems. Why are they the best? Because they don't have to make a profit, but do have to come up to a very high standard for the millions of people that have to use them daily. Not everything needs to make a positive cashflow like the US military machine. You seem to be confused by government. It doesn't mean they phsyically run things themselves, it means they pay the bill to external companies. Again, see US military.
You have a valid point (it's called "tyranny of the majority" to squash the minority underfoot). But I can not lay my hand on any part of Monticello City's constitution that forbids them from creating a fiber-optic company. Can you?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
So what we've learned from this is that if a city wants to get fibre deployment in their area, all they have to do is threaten to do it themselves. Then private companies will fall all over themselves to provide the services immediately.
Ironically, people investing their own money to solve their problems (because there is no one else who offers a cheaper solution) would not sound too much out of place in an Ayn Rand novel ...
Yeah, and them free SOCIALIST liberries, to. Gotta get rid of them and get owr libertees back!
You realy think some nerd down the street will be asked to installed the fiber?
Ofcourse the city will turn to a "corporation" to perform the installation and maintenance.
It called a public offer and the best bider win the contract. This is how govement build road,
bridge and power plant! They call some construction corporation with the expertise and ask
them to make a offer.
Are you sure Verizon is best for the job?
Why should it favorize Verizon?
Do you own shares of Verizon?
Are you a corrupted politician on Verizon payroll?
Or just plain ignorent? maybe both...
>>>Preventing the creation of a governmental company, no matter what line of business, is anti capitalistic
Yeah I agree.
So what's that have to do with my original statement, that I think a private corporation like Verizon FiOS would do a better job? This is no different than if the U.S. Army says "we need more tanks." They don't build the tanks themselves. They ring-up Lockheed or Northrop or some other corporation and have them build the tanks.
Also: I don't agree with your premise that a government monopoly is any better than a Comcast monopoly or Microsoft monopoly o ATT monopoly. We should steer clear of monopolies wherever we can, which is why I disagree with having a postal monopoly (which is deep in debt) or passenger rail monopoly (ditto).
I like choice. Monopolies take away that power.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Ah yes, the touchy-feely "pat them on the head and give them a cookie" approach, and everything will be all better. I've got a better idea: drag the little monsters out in the street and shot 'em. Now, you don't have to worry about the poor babies finding jobs when they get out.
There are a few roles that government must play. It must provide its citizens protection and a working legal framework. But when the government decides to dabble in providing other services, especially ones in which there already exists private enterprise, there is nothing gained but bureaucracy and government bloat.
Thomas Jefferson must be rolling over in his grave.
You might want to study a little history, Thomas Jefferson's economic policy was a disaster which put the US deeply into debt.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
That said, even getting food at your local store is indirectly using using the road (to get the food to you) which results indirectly in you paying the road tax which in my opinion is completely fair.
I have no idea what Jefferson would have thought of municipal fiber(though he might have said something pro or con about the establishment of the post office, and you could probably draw cogent analogies from that). However, there is a more general point that deserves clarification.
Jefferson and his colleagues wrote the federal constitution, laying out the powers and operation of the federal government with other powers reserved to the people or the states. The constitution they wrote placed considerable limits on the scope of the federal government; but placed very few limits on the scope of state and local government(pretty much, "no foreign policy, no violations of citizens enumerated rights" and not a whole lot else). Had the constitution been written to create a libertarian government, rather than a limited federal government presiding over a collection of state governments, it would have looked hugely different.
Of course, just because state and local governments can doesn't necessarily mean that they should, so it is perfectly legitimate to advocate for state and local governments along libertarian lines; but the assertion that the legitimate scope of government is tightly limited simply because the legitimate scope of the federal government is tightly limited is silly.
Obviously you didn't read the article. They contacted the telecoms company, and they said that they were not willing to deploy fibre in that area for the foreseeable future. Then, once the referendum had passed, they turned up with teams of workers and started deploying fibre...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Not bloody likely. Counties and States (and Commonwealths :) are already unwilling to raise taxes to pay for the installation of toll roads -- so much so that they are selling private companies the right to operate and profit from new tool roads if the companies will pay for the installation.
So there's no way on Earth that Counties or Cities would raise taxes to pay for installing something like a fiber or copper telecommunications backbone.
You are talking about federal programs and this story is about a town wanting to build its own fiber optic network. This story is about the local level.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Way off topic here, but the reason that 'socialist' fire departments are common now is that the people who were paying for private fire protection saw things like the great fire of London. It's much cheaper to pay for someone at the other end of the street to have their house put out than it is to pay to fix the damage caused (by both the fire and the water) when the fire reaches your house.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
How does killing people who kill other people teach others that killing people is wrong?
"Oh God help us. We're in the hands of engineers."
Are you against parks, roads, post office, etc.?
This public safety distinction is entirely your own. Adam Smith wouldn't support it, neither would the founding fathers.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Annual maintenance is only part of the cost of public roads. There is also the cost of building the roads, and many other associated costs. Gas taxes alone do not cover all of these costs.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
I am actually the chairperson of a "Broadband committee" for a city fiber network within a small city in Wisconsin. Charter Communications and Verizon refused to increase services for the city. The city pushed forward with their Broadband initiative and ran a few miles of fiber and ever hooked up a wireless ISP. Before I give the downside, let me tell you the results as of today. Both Charter and Verizon lowered there basic internet speed - 768k/128k (shouldn't count, but its more than the 33.6k dial up available) and have kept the low rates of under $20 w/o contract. Charter upgraded their network and now provides up to 16m/2m options. Verizon tops out at 7m/1.5m. Both ISPs lowered their business rates and have done their best to compete with the city's solution. Now - the ISPs can offer rebates that the city cannot. They can absorb construction costs that the city cannot. They have faster response times than the city's fiber. The reality is city governments are NOT organized enough to competitively run a broadband solution. There is too much red tape (especially in Wisconsin) and decisions cannot be made on the fly. My committee would love to hire a full time ISP manager, but there isn't enough revenue - because the companies that promised to use the city solution, SOLD OUT to the local telco after they dropped the rates and locked them into long term contracts.
The way it works out here is they bill you after.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
I wish this would have been so. The road system in the USA is a complete waste of money and resources. It is also unsustainable. When the oil production starts to decline, "trucking" in food and products from around the world to suburbia will drastically increase in price and eventually will stop in most parts of the country.. Please see "End of Suburbia" for more information.
So, I no longer wish to pay for lights in areas of town that I will never visit, refuse to pay for schools because I have no children, can see no purpose to having my tax dollars pay for the Interstate Highway system in New Hampshire as I will never go there, will not subsidize additions to my local airport as I do not fly and refuse to subsidize the building of fire houses except in the area that I live in.
Heaven forbid that tax money should be spent educating our youth!
This is the most funny post I have read about the wingnuts and their search for a cause. You win the internet ... oh wait, that might be anti-Flamer as the internet was built by the government
The get sued for not providing a fiberoptic system. The lawsuit prompts them to put one in to cover their butts, while not allowing the municipality to go forward with a publicly voted referendum to have a 'city system'. Sounds lop sided to me. THEN they have the cahunas to sue the city for trying to put in their own system? Bull! Sounds like a fair market competition to me. The city profits the same as a telcom would. Sounds also like the telcom is about to have a real rough time getting permits to do anything, much less put in fiberoptics. It'll make their costs go up and the city's alternative look better. Somebody here said something about 'shooting themselves in the foot'? Nailed it.
"What is a Social Contract?"
Correct! For $1000!
I live in Abingdon, VA. Recently, BVU extended their fiber to the house (FTTH) into my neighborhood. I was the first to have it installed on my street.
10MB service @ $55 monthly after all taxes have been applied. They are competing against Comcast & Embarq (two of my previous ISPs) and Charter & Verizon, and lastly the City of Abingdon itself (both paid fiber and free wireless).
Since I live on the edge of town, I am just outside the Abingdon Wireless Mesh reach, so technically it is not available to me, nor are there any plans to make the eva fiber available any time soon.
Additionally, 3g from Verizon & others are available in the area, depending on which side of which mountain you are in.
Links:
http://www.bbpmag.com/snapshot/snap1002.php
http://www.bvu-optinet.com/templates/default.php
http://www.eva.org/
http://www.abingdon.com/wireless/
So, they're not friends of competition, are they?
50-100 years ago we had this collective dream of free markets, capitalism, solving our problems.
Then, corporations found out that the actual free market is bad for profit margins. Once they grew powerful enough, they started changing the game.
Events like this should have the capitalists and free market supporters up in arms. But it doesn't. Why?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
How is desiring that the government only concern itself with governance anti-capitalistic? it seems that you are using the terms free enterprise and capitalism interchangeably. While free enterprise is definitely a major factor in capitalism, equally important factors are that capitalism is privately funded and the objective is generating capital (i.e. financial wealth). Publicly funded projects focussed on helping a community or the greater good are not in line with capitalism in any way. One distinct characteristic of laissez faire capitalism is that if it does not turn a profit it fails. Publicly funded projects often have no such limiting factor, which is one reason many people prefer to see projects that are not relevant to governance to be managed by the private sector.
This is the same argument that the incumbent carriers used to fight the municipal fiber optic system in Chattanooga TN. The carriers lost that battle in the courts and Chattanooga is well on it's way with the deployment of fiber everywhere in the city.
The tactic used is to make the legal costs so high that the municipality or district will just give up (they have had some successes with that technique).
I am not against free enterprise, innovation and competition but the incumbent telephone and cable TV carriers are anti-competitive and usually hold exclusive control over their customers. They will fight to the death to keep a competing system from succeeding.
Tisha Hayes
The judges are charged with instructing the jury on the law. The jury's responsibility is to decide on matters of fact. The judge rules according to the facts decided and in accordance with the laws in effect. The problem is laws.
Why should there ever be a question about whether or not a minor gets tried as an adult?? The punishment should fit the crime whether they are a minor or an adult!!
It is easy to argue that users of the Light Rail system are lessening the load on road maintenance, and hence funding them with road taxes makes perfect sense. Consider the gas tax to be a "transportation tax." Asking the rail users to completely fund rail use doesn't work, and the road users benefit from less traffic.
That's not an entirely bad thing.
(You live in Oregon too, right?)
Now it would suck for those who live outside the metro areas, but I actually find that when I go into Portland, I prefer the MAX (train) to driving. Once you total up gas costs, parking fees, aggravation from driving down there... the train makes a hell of a lot more sense.
It's not just in metro areas anymore, though - unlike most states, Oregon is also expanding the lines outward from PDX - I'm hoping they stretch 'em out to the coast, down to Salem, and eventually a medium-rail run to Bend.
If you've ever had to deal with 217, 26, or I-5 up here, you'd be demanding more light rail too...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Telco Sues Municipality For Laying Their Own Fiber on Friday September 12 2008, @08:28PM http://tech.slashdot.org/story/08/09/12/2326251/Telco-Sues-Municipality-For-Laying-Their-Own-Fiber Your Rights Online: Judge Tosses Telco Suit Over City-Owned Network on Friday October 10 2008, @08:23AM http://yro.slashdot.org/story/08/10/10/1243212/Judge-Tosses-Telco-Suit-Over-City-Owned-Network Telco Appeals Minnesota City's Fiber-Optic Win on Saturday November 08 2008, @11:15AM http://yro.slashdot.org/story/08/11/08/1532237/Telco-Appeals-Minnesota-Citys-Fiber-Optic-Win
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Off topic, but "favorize" made me chuckle. 1) No such word 2) I'm from the UK, you're missing the "u" and it's "ise". :D
The problem with this is that gas taxes do not even come close to covering the costs of building and maintaining the road network. Public roads are heavily subsidized.
So you want higher gas taxes?
Well, yeah. I want higher gas taxes -- and correspondingly lower general taxes. We're saying that the roads are paid for by the users, except they're not, so that would be the way to correct that.
I am not a crackpot.
It would seem that by economics of scale (you can fit several hundred people on a train), if you can get most people to use the rail system, it would become profitable within a short time. While Amtrack is certainly a money hole, I would be surprised if something like the NYC metro system or the Deutsche Bahn had the same problem. As for the US Military, while it is not likely to ever turn a profit directly, it can shape foreign policy in a way that would improve trade, thus assisting the economy overall.
This is a very familiar story, that we have seen play out with Greenlight in Wilson NC.
FTTP, up to 100 symmetric bandwidth, and the telecoms threw a freaking fit, and did their best to annihilate municipal broadband, and failed to stop it.
Reply to That ||
The Constitution defines the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. All other powers are reserved for the state. Nothing, even in looking at the founding father's writings imply that LOCAL GOVERNMENT cannot compete with private industry. The City of Monticello is not, despite the suprising ignorance shown here this topic, part of the Federal Government.
The City is more then capable of telling you what colors you can paint your house, where you can and cannot plant trees, and so forth. The issue building permits and license everything from the number of dogs you can have to how often you can water your lawn. They also can restrict businesses from opening from granting licenses to zoning requirements.
Cities and Counties and even States run and operate businesses as far back as the 13 colonies. We have Police Depts, Fire Depts, various inspectors (electrical (state), building (city), surveyors (county), assessors, DNR, etc... All of which can be hired in the capacity of a business in the form of permits and special services (Fire dept. will burn a building down for you, police can be hired for security for special events, etc.)
The sheer ignorance and lack of understanding of what the Constitution of the United States actually does is astonishing. The fact that when I was in high school and we were required in social studies to actually read the federalist papers compared to the teachers now that, "that stuff is nothing but a bunch of lies" thank you teachers union in district 622 here in MN speaks on how much misinformation exists on the purpose.
Of course I expect little from my home state now, we've elected a wrestler and now a bad comedian. Perhaps Louie Anderson can run against Frankin... Hell I'd be happy to have KKKKAAAAAHHHHHNNNNNN! KKKKKKKAAAAAHHHHHNNNNNN!!!! tossed out...
For those that do understand the Constitution, kudos for keeping the arguments rooted in reality.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
It's like the electric companies taking the city to court for allowing a band of citizens from using solar panels to get their electricity.
Seriously, they are way too greedy, and need to be reminded how this works. If citizens bought the optic fiber and lay it down at their cost from house to house, to share within their own network , the advantage of using optic fiber, then so be it, how can you say they do not have the right, especially if it was voted on and passed as a bill by the council themselves. They make the rules about what goes into the ground in the city, not the telcom companies.
i think the matter of "states' rights" was decided in 1865.
Goes to show the biggest enemy of the free market is...the free market.
False. The amount of money collected from gasoline/diesel taxes *far exceed* the amount spent on annual maintenance. Where does the excess go? I don't about your state, but in mine the gas taxes are used to subsizde the Light Rail trains.
Show me a "light rail" in my state and I'll eat it. Light rail is just a tease in most places. Where I live, I subsidize gasoline (actually gasohol blend) with my general taxes. That's right -- you get a state-subsidized discount (around 20 cents/gallon) if you buy blended gas/ethanol.
I am not a crackpot.
This type of thing is just wrong. Usually cities want to roll out their own broadband system when there is no competition, and the current service is too expensive, totally sucks, or both. In other words, Telcos/ISPs are trying to stop cities from competing with them. HMMM...anti-competitive practices...monopolistic companies trying to maintain a monopoly in an area...isn't this what M$()and other companies) are in trouble for?
Both government and corporations need to be reminded that corporations/businesses do NOT have rights! Only INDIVIDUALS have rights.
If you read the Fibernet Monticello site and their history, the court case stalled nothing. They were awaiting a bond sale to obtain the funds required to build this system. That sale, totaling $26.445 million, stalled its progress for all of one month. The citizens asked for this, the private corporation didn't provide so they did it themselves. What does twist things for me though is they hired HBC (Hiawatha Broadband Communications), a Minnesota telco, to administrate their newly created fiber system. Why not hire citizens to run this system and manage it in a similar style to the post office? Sure HBC probably has network management experience but it ties one corporation into a government entity. Maybe ties them a bit too closely for my comfort. This could end up being a commercial telco battle between HBC vs. TDS with HBC having the backing of local/state/federal funding for future development. Kind of a shitty masquerade of a public/city service that is actually a corporation. Good luck citizens of Monticello!
http://www.fibernetmonticello.com/aboutus.cfm
Whoa... Unless there are public roads, then the only roads from A to B would be the private ones???
Corporations don't just need to make positive cash flow. They need to show GROWTH each quarter. Personally I would rather hand my tax money over to someone who only had incentive to break even. Letting a company who feels compelled to profit and show constant growth take control of a necessity, something such as the roads or the water (or any other natural monopoly)... Well that's about as stupid as paying your bills with a credit card and carrying the balance.
umm hello?
The article is about a city, Monticello, that did exactly what you claim that there is "no way on Earth" a city would do.
"His name was James Damore."
Next time the town should be more careful about granting exclusive contracts.
Exclusive deals usually go sour before the ink is dry. It's not a new problem and if it were easily solved, it would be solved by now. Here's the obligatory quote summing up the problem:
It's tenacity probably owes something to shortcomings in human nature and the inability of society to self-correct in those areas.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
If you don't drive, then you don't pay the "use fee" collected at the pumps.
Your kidding, right? Do you ride the bus? Buses run on Diesel (mostly.) which pays road tax.
I think you're getting a tad too literal there. Perhaps the statement would be better phrases as: "If you don't use the roads . . ." Although, I don't pay a specific "bike-tax", so I guess there are exceptions.
I am not a crackpot.
Actually... gas taxes are not a percentage of the sale price; instead they are $0.xx/gallon. Unfortunately that means that as gas prices go up, the government actually loses money because people buy less gas. Gas stations are the same way, many of them nearly went broke when prices soared to $3+ just because the credit card companies take their cut as a percentage while the gas station takes a fixed cut per gallon, with high priced gas, the credit card cut was often higher than the stations' cut.
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
Do you ride the bus? Buses run on Diesel (mostly.) which pays road tax.
No they don't. Special pumps owned by the city, filled with gas on which the taxes are not paid, same for all other city vehicles.
The reasons against capital punishments are far simpler than you think:
1) The way it is done usually is far more costly (and that does not even count wasting the massive investment a society puts just getting someone to adulthood, particularly with a good education)
2) All methods seem to be rather cruel, despite claims to the contrary
3) You _will_ end up killing innocents. Lots of them. A government that is routinely involved in killing innocents in my eyes has very little justification for judging others. Few people would support murders as judges, but that's essentially what death sentences imply in a non-perfect world.
Every commuter rail/subway system in the US is partially funded by taxes. It's just too expensive otherwise. DC's Metro has constant problems with funding because they have no dedicated source, unlike most (all?) other US subway systems, so they're constantly being jerked around by the three local governments. For the NYC subway, see this article.
Wow...I guess it's up to the citizens of Monticello to poke the telco in the eye again, and boycott their service for being dweebs.
My available options for broadband in my home?
Comcast and TDS.
And yes, I get better customer service from Comcast. Which should tell you something about TDS.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
I'm not too sure about that.
I seem to remember a NatGeo show about prison in Australia. The majority of inmates were back in prison for another crime after being released. Rehab doesn't seem to be any more effective there.
As far as actual crime goes, Australia has a very low rate for gun crimes. Having said that, they apparently are near the top of the list (Top 5) for Assault, Burglary, Rape and overall percentage of citizens victimized.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/as-australia/cri-crime&all=1
This assumes the mentioned site is on the up-and-up. I'm not aware of any bias from that site, but I'm sure someone will happily point it out if there is.
This is the US. The guiding principle is supposed to be that if it's not specifically authorized by the chartering document, the government is prohibited from it.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
If they actually did this it would be nice. Problem is they'd use this as an excuse to raise gas taxes then not lower the other taxes proportionally.
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0906/opa081928-0602.pdf
I wish there was a new mod category so this could be rated "+5 Zing". Hit it right on the head. I say the same thing to people who think we shouldn't have to pay to support mentally disabled people with special schooling. We made the decision long ago to help each other out, we can't just pick and choose now, unfortunately plenty of people don't understand that.
What about Fire services? Police? Not all services are required by everyone at all times, but they should be available. Internet has become another utility and should be treated as such.
setting aside for a moment the fact that "we'd like faster internet" and "we love oppressing minorities" are apples and oranges, please show your work. specifically, i'd like to know what rules and laws prohibit a local government from providing a service that private industry has refused to roll out. I think you're thinking of 'unreasonable' government competition. hint: if the private sector has refused to provide a service, the government isnt competing by providing it.
Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
If that don't learn'em, just kill'em.
Well if killing were always wrong, you'd have a point, but there are times where its justified.
Personally, I think its a great way to deal with the dregs of society; eliminate the ones causing problems, and you'll only be left with people who aren't causing problems.
It is called a trade off. When the government spends money on infrastructure it isn't throwing it away. That money will provide jobs to people in the US those people will buy stuff and provide more jobs and all those people will pay taxes. Some of that stuff may be education for their children or themselves which will pay more benefits.
Think about the rural electrification project from the 1930s. That paid huge benefits to the country in increased productivity and quality of life in rural America
In the end things like roads, phone lines, and now data lines are used by everybody. The more people that have access the more benefit to everybody. I know that it is may be unpopular to say it but $300 spent on infrastructure will benefit the US a lot more than that same money spent on a game console made in china by a Japanese company.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
when you have a heart attack the ambulance service pays the road tax and you pay the ambulance service. riding in an ambulance is not free but by paying the ambulance service you pay for the road usage. so he is still correct because he is paying to use it.
And the minute they tried to actually get started, a big ugly bully sues the crap out of them and brings things to a screeching halt, tying them up in court long enough to beat them to the punch.
The lawsuit was nothing more than one racer lobbing a bucket of oil in front of the leader's tires. If the judge gets wind of what the telco was doing while the city was tied up in court I hope he slaps them HARD.
You'd think that in a legal dispute like this the telco would have been facing an injunction not to be messing with the fiber itself.
Your definition of profit is too limited, and I believe this stems from your over-stressing 'capitalism' instead of 'free market'
These people are willing to pay for the service they demand. Period.
"His name was James Damore."
Gas is pretty cheap in this country (relative to other parts of the world), and local governments are ridiculously broke right now. I think I could get behind a gas tax to help cover the current shortfalls. I recognize that increasing any taxes in the middle of a recession would be hugely unpopular, but in addition to keeping state and local governments afloat, an increase in the cost of gasoline could create incentives that might propel a lot of positive changes (the purchase of more fuel-efficient cars, reduced dependence on foreign oil through reduced consumption, increased use of public transporation, etc).
What I'd ultimately like is to see the proceeds of such a tax be used to increase availability of and access to public transportation across the country. But I imagine that once politicians get their hands on the money, they'll find all kinds of pet projects on which to spend it.
I don't have an account here, mostly just read. But wanted to comment on your post as I found it enlightening. I live in Canada and have never been nor ever met anyone who has been victim of a crime. So I don't think about the justice system too often. But your points on re-offenders based on the justice system intended to be used for prevention rather than vengeance is a paradigm shift for me.
I'll be sure to share your arguments with others if it comes up in conversation. Good post.
They could surely use a different set of web developers. Cold Fusion? Who actually uses that to build sites?
Heaven forbid that tax money should be spent educating our youth!
Why is insightful? The argument being made was not that tax money should not be spent on education, but that road use tax money should be spend on roads, but is instead diverted to other needs.
I don't mind paying gas tax for roads. I don't mind paying property tax for education. I mind like hell paying either only to find that the money was diverted to other things. We will never know the true cost of services with this kind of bullshit accounting going on.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
Done properly I think this is actually a good thing to do.
Taxing gasoline to pay for public transportation is like taxing cigarettes to pay for lung doctors.
Revenue raising isn't the only reason we have taxes.
Judges dont do that. They tend to ignore what companies do and let them profit from breaking the law.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I hate how 'vengeance' has become a dirty word; and yet if you have been the victim of a crime, surely it is a basic human need. If you don't factor it into the sentence, you will just encourage vigilantism.
it is capitalism if the network was paid for by the people using it and not a tax on everybody in the city even those who never use it or wanted it.
Light Yagami, is that you?
At least public roads are directly funded by those who use them (drivers). If you don't drive, then you don't pay the "use fee" collected at the pumps.
you know NOTHING about how roads are funded.
Road getting paved? we will slap a tax assessment on your property because the road runs in front of it, dont worry, you can take a few years to pay it off.
Road getting repaired? Have another tax assessment.
Gas tax goes into a mystery fund for the state to maintain and improve major highways. yet 90% of the roads in a state are not Highways.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The main reason that Amtrak is such a mess is that it follows the opposite pattern.
Normally, you have public ownership of the very limited infrastructure and private operators using it. This is how the electric grid is generally set up, for example - one set of wires for the city, and multiple companies feeding it power.
With Amtrak, the infrastructure itself, generally running along public-seized land, is owned privately by a very few companies. The trains themselves were publicly owned, but at the mercy of the private traffic on the lines. Pretty much the opposite of the way that trains are set up in most countries.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
If they lost a number of law suites, I take it they'd be liable for costs. Presumably there wasn't a business case for building the network in the first place. And finally, no one thinks the better of TDS for the these events.
How much did this cost TDS and did anyone in a decision making position loose their job?
umm, that's exactly what the cities did.
they issued municipal bonds, or basically used taxpayer dollars to install something for the taxpayer. You know, like they do when they fix up roads, etc.
TFA sucks and sucks hard. Ars Technica has a far better article. The suit is over, it started two years ago and the telco lost.
Free Martian Whores!
Once you total up gas costs, parking fees, aggravation from driving down there... the train makes a hell of a lot more sense.
I agree! in Chicago I use the train almost exclusively. The problem is that most people from around here freak when I say that.. One mother of a friend of my daughters said, "The train? and have to be around all those icky poor people?"
Most people here in the USA are bred to be against public transportation. They think it's "icky" and they see them belching black smoke so it's "dirty"...
It's heavy training from TV that you must own the biggest car you can get, and that public transportation is BAD!. Hell the Tv show Seinfeld. They lived in New York, What idiot drives everywhere in New york? Most people in reality use public transportation in NYC. you NEVER saw them on a subway, always in jerry's or kramers car.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
"Lights in areas of town that [you] will never visit" should balance out with the people in those areas who don't want to pay for lights in the area of town where you are. The rest of those are perfectly logical, and in an ideal and fair world you wouldn't be paying for those.
Unfortunately, this world is neither ideal nor fair.
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
Raise gas taxes and people use less gas. It's a regressive tax and if you push it too hard you'll see a massive flight to higher millage cars or even non-petrol cars. Then what do you tax? Electricity? Now you're taxing people who may or may not use the roads.
As a second point everyone benefits from good roads not just those who drive on them. Police and fire departments can respond better on good roads. Less congestion means better air quality. Better roads also bring in more business which means more jobs. The road infrastructure is tied into almost everything we do. Thus everyone helps pay for it. Your precept that only those who drive benefit from roads is both short sighted and incorrect.
The private road company was refusing to build a road, period, and is now attempting to enforce the monopoly they have by preventing a public road from being laid.
At least public roads are directly funded by those who use them (drivers).
Public roads are typically funded by developers or by public bonds. They are paid off by their share of gas taxes, by tolls, or by the homeowners.
In this case the public road would have been paid for by the users, through broadband access fees which would have paid off the bonds.
Moreover, (and I'm getting more off topic) disease is a lot like fire. America will probably get a single payer health insurance plan after a plague does for health care what the London fire did for firefighting.
How is desiring that the government only concern itself with governance anti-capitalistic? it seems that you are using the terms free enterprise and capitalism interchangeably. While free enterprise is definitely a major factor in capitalism, equally important factors are that capitalism is privately funded and the objective is generating capital (i.e. financial wealth). Publicly funded projects focussed on helping a community or the greater good are not in line with capitalism in any way. One distinct characteristic of laissez faire capitalism is that if it does not turn a profit it fails. Publicly funded projects often have no such limiting factor, which is one reason many people prefer to see projects that are not relevant to governance to be managed by the private sector.
In a sane capitalistic system the government is not seen as a separate entity but rather as an enterprise of its own. The citizens are subscribers of the services through tax payments, and in exchange they are allowed to use these services, such as voting, schooling, healthcare etc.. E.g. variable income taxes could be seen as discounts for those whom have less income, just as other companies have e.g. other discounts such as student discounts -- which fundamentally function in the same way. In this example I'm trying to show you how a government is easily compared to a company.
You're right in that publicly funded projects don't always have profit in mind, and it's only in such cases that a public company is justified to be formed -- in a sane capitalistic system. Basic economics tell us that profit is a shift in economic balance. If everybody invests equally in a company, and everybody utilizes their services to an equal level, nobody would make profit. Of course this "perfect" scenario never plays out in that sense, but that is the motivation behind it. E.g. healthcare -- we can all get sick or injured at any time, thus a public system helps to assure the well being of everyone.
So money in this sense is not mainly used to invest and collect revenue, but merely a comphensation which in return is compatible with the private sector. Thus it is perfectly in line with capitalism since the private alternative should always be allowed to exist. And they should both be allowed to exist under fair terms. If there is a government controlled fibre network controlled by one governmental company, which is utilized for free by another governmental company, then a private company should also have the right to utilize it for free, so that they both remain under fair terms. If some people consider this network inadequate for them, then we have a demand which is not global -- paving the way for a private company to form and offer another network which they can then charge for. This is how public healthcare works. One might argue that "in that case the public sector will build a huge network making it virtually impossible for private companies to do business in this line" -- exactly -- and that is the point. Sane capitalism should always be driven by supply and demand which causes a shift of economic balance from demand to supply, and as we stated if there is a global demand there cannot be profit as there would be complete economic balance.
If you don't follow this you will be adding an artificial scarcity, and when you do this is when you get a sick capitalistic system no longer formed by the darwinistic forces which it makes it sane to begin with. It is when you do this that you hinder development, raise prices and lower quality -- because you have the power to control scarcity and not the darwinistic driven market which is fueled by -- that's right -- supply and demand.
I am the lawn!
Yeah and he forgot to mention all the federal money. In my state its more than 1:1. So much for his local money argument......
The federal constitution says that in regards to the federal government. Unless the local governments also have that provision, then they can provide whatever services they want to.
How about the fact that Verizon is divesting itself of all of its rural infrastructure, and guess what, I bet 70% or more of those people would love to have FIOS.. DSL.. hell even cable...
Take a look at New England, Verizon sold off its lines there, and now the company is filing for bankruptcy and their service is horrible.
Sure, you will say well those are rural areas and they are not profitable..
How about Fairfax in the Washington DC metro area.. lots of money, monstrously dense population... FIOS is in parts of, but still refuses to wire a significant portion of it (I suspect that has more to do with franchise agreements and what not).
Verizon is not the end all be all, I can almost guarentee that unless a town bends over and takes it up the behind from Verizon, Verizon will still not wire the area, they have no incentive, 70% populace wanting something that costs a significant amount to install and will run at a loss for a long time, is still a loss and no incentive at all. Currently the only place Verizon is actually persuing, agressively, FIOS installations, is where they compete with other large providers, and even then, there is price collusion since prices are not going down in any way, and never have. I am fortunate to live in the area where FIOS was first being tested in the US long before actual deployment, otherwise I doubt I would have it.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
So what's that have to do with my original statement, that I think a private corporation like Verizon FiOS would do a better job? This is no different than if the U.S. Army says "we need more tanks." They don't build the tanks themselves. They ring-up Lockheed or Northrop or some other corporation and have them build the tanks.
Sometimes something is of the collective interest of everybody, then, in general, there are no differences. When everbody agrees (more or less) is when you create a governmental postal system, fire dept., health care, roads, and in this case communication.
Also: I don't agree with your premise that a government monopoly is any better than a Comcast monopoly or Microsoft monopoly o ATT monopoly. We should steer clear of monopolies wherever we can, which is why I disagree with having a postal monopoly (which is deep in debt) or passenger rail monopoly (ditto).
There should always be private alternatives and they should never be banned, as that would be anti capitalistic as well.
No use in repeating myself.
I am the lawn!
There's a chapter about this in "Freakonomics" by Dubner and Levitt, where they run the numbers and point out that legalizing abortion and putting more cops on the streets has done more to lower the crime rate than any number of executions per year ever will.
--Obyron
No, the biggest enemy of the free market is the abused court system in this example...
Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
The train is great, but one of the reasons you prefer it might be because the train ticket doesn't cover the full cost of operating the train. I'm all for mass transit that covers it's costs, but very little of it comes close. Trains and busses are very efficient when it's rush hour and they're full, but throughout the day they continue to run and are very underutilized. That cuts their avereage efficiency to not all that much better than the average car passenger's nationally (some system's like NYC subway are doubtless better than that).
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Not sure where you got your information about Jefferson. Even though he repealed the whiskey tax he was still able to reduce the national debt by one third. Now his personal life was a bit different, he died greatly in debt.
Oh, and btw, Verizon does not do any of the cabling of the cities themselves, they contract it out to private companies (who's trucks sometimes have one of those giant magnetic Verizon logo's plastered on the side of their vehicle), they do not even wife it up to the house where the ONT will be, another private contractor does that. Verizon only came out to hook up the ONT, and wire the house if need be for whatever devices you want them to hook up.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
Police are not babysitters. They are not there to protect us from ourselves. They are there to defend property and citizens from each other. For those reasons they are important.
If thugs go after some ethnic group that isn't yours you should not have to pay for their protection.
What does ethnicity have to do with anything? They are people too and would get the same protections of property and self as any other ethnicity.
If some indigent gets sick or insured you shouldn't have to pay for their care. Let them die if they don't have the money.
In a perfect and ideal world, no this would never happen. However ( and this is the point that everyone in the healthcare debate seems to miss ) It costs money to provide healthcare. In some cases lots of money. What is the value of human life? If a procedure is going to cost 100 million dollars to save 1 person is it still worth it because life is valuable? Death is inevitable, we are all going to die. It is just a matter of time. In some cases it is not worth it, even for a family member to pay the costs of healthcare. It is sometimes better to let your own child die then pay for a miracle. The idea that the government should pay whatever costs are necessary at the taxpayers expense is impractical. It doesn't mean we as a society shouldn't strive to provide care for all, it just means you must take into account the real costs in the real world and ask if it is worth it. Healthcare has costs it cannot and never will be free. Also, death is natural and it is not inhumane to let people die - no one lives forever.
On Education: For starters a public education system is the tenth plank of the communist manifesto. Second the public education system is used as an indoctrination tool and inhibits free thought, in the public education system you are punished for being a non-conformist. Then there is the cost of public education, once again people aren't practical about how to pay for it. Even if the first two points didn't matter the public education system is horribly underfunded to even meet its stated goals. Here are two more reasons why some people don't want to support public education: 1. They never used it (private or home schooled). 2. It holds back the bright students in order to cater to the failing ones.
I don't think anyone is for no-government. However we managed just fine for hundreds of years with less government. I'm all for government, just less of it. For instance in the case of this telco issue, the people organized to put in their own fiber network (a public project is not necessarily a government project) and the government instead of promoting competition though fair trade stopped the people for building the product they wanted. In this case that is not a free market, that is a government regulated market hampering progress.
Here is the fun part.
Answer this: You need to increase taxes because your budget does not support all the money you pay out.
The problem: The citizens do not want more taxes and are vocal about it.
Solution : Threaten to close fire stations, police sub stations, lay off nurses in schools.
Guess what, I don't want to be beholden to my local, state, or Federal government, for all services because they use them as a club to condition our behavior. Atlanta did just this recently. Closed these stations and such instead of ditching cronies and dead weight. So instead of budgeting properly they did by threat; they even carried it out.
So, when people bring up the fire department analogy I like to show the real dark side of that.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
When I had to take an ambulance ride after a mountain biking accident, the bill was nearly nearly $3000, before insurance. I say that covers it.
Gone!
Public transport is "dirty" because people take poorer care of things that have shared ownership than they do of their personal property. People throw litter on the highway, but less frequently in their own yard; people paint graffiti on park benches and bus stops, but not on their own homes.
There are many reasons that public transportation is not the be-all end-all solution that people from dense urban areas commonly think. Extreme inconvenience (it's slow, has limited end points, inflexible schedules) is only one of those. Others include both expense and the fact that it is, indeed dirty. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone's car that has an interior that's as poorly kept as some of the buses and trains I've been on here.
Public transportation is bad. It is dirty. It's poorly maintained. It's expensive. Hard to find a better definition of icky.
Topic Should state "Town Gets Fiber Network by Threatening to Build Fiber Network"
You're right, bonds are sold to finance road construction. Care to guess where the money for the interest and principle on those bonds comes from? Hint: it rhymes with "ass tacks".
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Don't even get me started on the DC Metro system.. it is a disaster..
Typical cost (assuming you park there as well) is around $5 a day to park, and $4ish each way during rush hour for those who live in the suburbs and travel into the city... And they keep jacking up the price every year if not more often. The price hikes would not be so bad if service improved, but prices keep going up, and the service keeps going down.
As for the funding issues, well Metro crosses VA MD and DC.. Getting those three governments to fund anything is a pain because they always argue about who should bear the majority of the costs for anything. And the numbers they throw around are ridiculously high (in the billions usually for example, the purple line to connect the outer stations).
I can get anywhere within NYC on the subway there, in DC, I theres about 80% of the area that does not get metro service, you have to take a metro bus.. and trust me, you dont want to do that.. Unreliable, rarely on time, stink, and they like to occasionally run people over and kill them (3 or 4 incidents this year already).... The subway was designed to move people in and out of the city, not really around inside the city.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
You want to build a house in Nowhere, Virginia: You pay the installation costs. There should not be any subsidization for these services by non-users. Not one single dime.
Would that also follow for maintenance costs? In that case should poor people, and thus poor neighborhoods, get lower quality roads than rich people? Naturally, this is already happening to some extent--bad neighborhoods often have unclean roads riddled with potholes, but in your "ideal" scenario I can only imagine infrastructure being yet more unevenly distributed. This would be a great way to create something approximating a third world country, right here in America!
When you buy food at the grocery, do you think the money you spent just goes to the grocery store and never leaves to other people? The grocer had to buy the food from the wholesaler that delivered it in the first place. Then the wholesaler has to pay for the fuel for his trucks, using the money from the grocer. So part of the price of every organic grape you're buying goes to the fuel tax that got that grape to your local market.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
That depends on where you live, mostly. In Missouri, we had a spat with our legislators about 5 year ago - they were putting gas taxes into the general fund and then spending a much smaller amount of money on road maintenance. When we complained about the state of our roads, they replied, 'Gee, guess we have to raise gas taxes, then.'
So we used citizen's initiative to put an item on the ballot to specifically reserve gas taxes for the Dept. of Transportation. A lot of people were saying that it was going to destroy our schools by taking away their funding. Still, it passed by almost an 80% margin.
Now, our roads are in much better condition. You might want to check in the area where you live how much is gathered in gas taxes, and then how much is spent on road maintenance, and compare the numbers.
That's fine. Their town; their decision. But rather than have government do the job
The people of the town - who are the government! - voted to get together and do what the telco had refused to do. When you get to a certain percentage level of popular support, the distinction between "the government" and "the people" disappears altogether.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
It was... the wrong way.
Booth was a patriot.
They lived in New York, What idiot drives everywhere in New york? Most people in reality use public transportation in NYC. you NEVER saw them on a subway, always in jerry's or kramers car.
Two Seinfeld episodes spring to mind; the one with the naked guy, and the one where Kramer gets mugged...ohhhh...Ok I think I see your point...
Did you miss the part where they would lease the fiber to telcos and ISPs? It's called a long term investment. The fiber is going to pay for itself in the long run whether the telcos and ISPs lease it and offer services or if the local municipal offers services.
Plus if the municipal owns the fiber, they can make sure that monopolies don't occur and that every provider that wants in can. If a telco or ISP owns the fiber, they can price the competition out of business with high fiber lease fees.
I live in Dallas with TWC. $120 for a triple play is competitive. I think a little lower than what TWC is offering after the first couple months special. Without comparing the TV lineup though, Greenlight internet is much better (7/1 versus 10/10).
The role of the criminal justice system is to make streets a safer place, not to make you feel better after crimes have been committed.
No.
The role of the criminal justice system is justice. Justice is retribution: Punish those who do evil, and in measure to the evil done. Focus on deterrence, rehabilitation, or any other goal weakens justice and is a hazard to society.
Raise gas taxes and people use less gas. It's a regressive tax and if you push it too hard you'll see a massive flight to higher millage cars or even non-petrol cars.
People also - Use the road less, with smaller and more efficient cars. This reduces wear on those roads.
As a second point everyone benefits from good roads not just those who drive on them. Police and fire departments can respond better on good roads.
Yes, our public services certainly benefit from good roads.
Less congestion means better air quality. Better roads also bring in more business which means more jobs. The road infrastructure is tied into almost everything we do. Thus everyone helps pay for it. Your precept that only those who drive benefit from roads is both short sighted and incorrect.
I don't know if the road quality is a major contributor to congestion though, because most of the congestion I see is due to the construction and maintenance of the roads, and terribly poor timing with lights.
But the major driver for bringing in businesses is overall economic health in the community. I'd argue that well run community likely has better roads because they know how to run the community... Whereas, I don't believe that good roads will lead to a well run community.
What do you base that on? From what I've seen legal systems have been unduly rough with some companies, like Microsoft, to the degree that they appear to be using law suits as cash grabs. I see no motivation for judges "tending" on the side of companies. Perhaps you have some examples to the contrary?
Well if killing were always wrong, you'd have a point, but there are times where its justified.
It's justified only when it's the only option. It is never the only option for dealing with a criminal.
aka TEAFARTS
Should someone come and take all the pavement and street lighting etc up at your your house?
It's interesting that you should ask. In my neighborhood (and, in my experience, every neighborhood I've seen developed in the last 25 years), the pavement and street lighting weren't installed by the city -- they were installed by the developer. Part of the purchase price of my house was the cost of creating the roads, sidewalks, storm drains, and other infrastructure.
In fact, in all the recent (again, younger than 25 years or so) neighborhoods around here, there are no street lights, per se. Each resident is required to keep lit a 75-watt bulb in their front yard, on their own electric bill.
So, at least in this part of the world (central Illinois), the government has already given up investing in new streets and new street lighting.
Which is what he said, "There should always be private alternatives and they should never be banned, as that would be anti capitalistic as well."
How you got that he was encouraging monopolies of any form is beyond me.
Yeah that was the dead give away it was a joke. Can't believe how many fell for it.
And if Verizon says "sorry, your town isn't big enough for it to be worth it." What then? I think the point of this story is that the town DID ask a private company and that company declined. At that point, the town's only option was to do it themselves (because nobody else was going to). That's when the private company finally did get involved, by bogging the plan down in the courts.
I agree that monopolies are a bad thing, but this case is about a telecom essentially demanding the right to a monopoly - they now all of a sudden want to provide fiber, but no one else can be allowed to compete with them.
Ya know, I'd rather cut things like welfare, food stamps, etc. Its infurating to see some fat slob with her four kids riding on a bus for two blocks FOR FREE because she's too lazy to walk, just sucking away the earings of hard working people. We need a saftey net, but we also need to cut the dead weight that doesn't contribute to society AT ALL. And believe me, there's a lot of them around.
You're right that there are unquantifiable but very real benefits to road systems, to a point. The problem, to me, is that people look at other things, like, say, trains, and they say "that's retarded! these will never pay for themselves!" apparently completely oblivious to the fact that the roads don't "pay for themselves either", not under the current system.
Under the current system you also get some people taking an unfair amount of the burden. Typically, cities subsidize their roads heavily with property taxes. But then you end up with all the people that live in the cities paying for the roads that the suburbanites (just out of reach of the cities taxing hands) use to get to their jobs or bars or friends' houses. I would argue that this has compounded urban decay in many American cities: municipalities are unable to maintain their infrastructure as more and more residents and businesses move to the suburbs to get on the right side of this unbalanced equation, taking their property tax dollars with them. A gas tax is very elegant in that the more you use the roads, the more you pay. Is it perfect? No, but in my opinion it's a lot fairer than the current system spelled out above.
As for electric cars screwing up the idea of a gas tax, I agree entirely. But for the moment that's a hypothetical.
Not the same in every place not even in every state, let alone every province. I'll use an example for my own province, there's at least 4 taxes on fuel. Flat tax, 2 scaled taxes(GST/PST), and a excise tax(scaled). Not counting "pre" taxes at the refinery which are also included in excise. Various states also use a scaled excise tax.
Om, nomnomnom...
you'll see a massive flight to higher millage cars
Sounds like a good thing. Let's raise the gas tax!
Specific use taxes often don't work out as intended. Texas tried to finance education with the lottery system. I suppose that makes a twisted sort of sense. The less well-educated tend to play the lottery more. So, what happened? The revenue from the lottery did indeed go to education. And an equivalent amount of general revenue that used to go to education was diverted to other uses. Texas also tried this "Robin Hood" program. Take money from rich school districts and give to poor school districts. It worked, or would have, except under the cover of that program, they pulled even more money out of education. An ebbing tide strands all boats?
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Police are not babysitters. They are not there to protect us from ourselves. They are there to defend property and citizens from each other. For those reasons they are important.
Ya, except they fail miserably at both. I've reported valilism. "Sorry, there's not much we can do." Reported theft. "Sorry, there's no much we can do." People are still attacked and murdered.
Oh, but go 15 over the improperly set speed limit, boy are they there quickly!
I agree with you on the rest of your post though, especially healthcare, where the most deadly diseases are related to lifestyle choices (namely, how much food people are shovling down their fat throats).
I don't support public eduction because not enough control is taken from the parents to ensure the kid can actually be educated. Studies show that home life, diet, and exercise all affect a childs ability to learn, yet those are hands off (but its still MY responsiblity to eductate kids... when I'm effectively handicapped from doing so). I also don't get a say in how many kids someone can have... so some fat slob that's not working is telling me its my job to pay for her kids education (and feed her, er, them) while she speeds her day with her legs spread.
Exactly, and in most cases I would imagine capital costs for roads to hugely exceed operating costs when amortized.
Actually it usually rhymes with "roperty tacks"
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/12/2326251
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Those South American countries were forced to give their infrastructure to private companies in order to receive IMF loans. The leaders of those countries were bullied, bribed and threatened to take those loans.
Read Confessions of an Economic Hitman and Shock Doctrine.
I don't know many people in the Twin Cities area who like their tap water. Yesterday people in Burnsville were complaining about a foul smell coming from their taps. New Brighton well water had high levels of a certain kind of rocket fuel that exceeds EPA standards. Friends of mine said there water is almost always yellow or orange. My parents have city official test their water weekly for the past decade and they still can't figure out why they are having problems. I heavily filter my tap water and shower otherwise my skin becomes untolerably dry and mold grows at an incredible rate.
I'm not saying we should be giving our infrastructure to private companies, but the governments solution is cheap and we get what we pay for.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
They DID contact private corporations.
TDS told them to FOAD. Then sued them when they did it themselves.
The government was only involved in early planning, passing the referendum and acquiring the money.
They contracted with a private corporation (Hiawatha Broadband) to provision them and oversee the build-out.
The employees of the company created aren't government employees.
The only government involvement is a citizen's oversight group that was elected into place.
There WAS a monopoly in place. TDS.
Now there's competition since the douchebags at TDS finally implemented their own fibernet.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I agree with the author of the article linked by the GP that the best possible way to resolve a murder case is for the intended victim to kill the attacker.
At $9, a trip from one of the outer stops to the inner city during rush hour is still probably cheaper than gas and wear and tear on your car, and doesn't take nearly as long.
You can waste 2 hours of your life driving in and our of the city, I'll sit on the dirty smelly trains browsing slashdot and using my time more wisely than sitting in my car on the 395 parking lot.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Building roads, adding lanes, installing lighting..... it all comes out of the maintenance budget, which is collected from gasoline taxes. And in my state where we have *excess* gasoline taxes, that extra cash funds the light rail.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
That is ridiculous. The problem isn't that gas taxes, etc, are being diverted to other uses - it's that general revenue is being diverted to building and maintaining roads. Per the University of Iowa: "On average, states raise 38% of their road funds from fuel taxes and 22% from vehicle registration fees." So only about 60% of the cost of roads comes from actual user fees. The rest is subsidized from general revenue.
>>>It is easy to argue that users of the Light Rail system are lessening the load on roads
So you agree with me then: The money collected from gasoline/diesel taxes *exceed* the amount needed to maintain the roads. There are excess funds.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
At least, not in general. Most states only cover about 60% of the costs of building and maintaining roads through user fees (gas taxes, tolls, registration fees). The rest is subsidized from general revenue. In VA, it's killing us - the money from general revenue isn't there anymore, so VDOT has an enormous backlog of repair work that just isn't getting done.
Actually, a lot of people benefit just from having the roads in their area whether they drive or not. Emergency response personnel can reach your house. Areas with roads are more attractive to businesses which can then be utilized by those who don't drive to them.
So the benefit of the road is greater than the simply the ability to drive on them. Therefore, those who benefit, even indirectly, should help to pay for them.
But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
Raise gas taxes and people use less gas. It's a regressive tax and if you push it too hard you'll see a massive flight to higher millage cars or even non-petrol cars. Then what do you tax? Electricity? Now you're taxing people who may or may not use the roads.
Now that's the first time I've heard someone talking about the negatives of getting people to use less gas and buy more fuel-efficient cars. Is my sarcasm meter broken this morning? Are you sure you mean "regressive" when you write of the gas tax, because your previous sentence implied that people would use less gas as a consequence of higher taxes? We're not talking something as egregious as sales tax on food -- something I'm finally free of, BTW.
As a second point everyone benefits from good roads not just those who drive on them. Police and fire departments can respond better on good roads. Less congestion means better air quality. Better roads also bring in more business which means more jobs. The road infrastructure is tied into almost everything we do. Thus everyone helps pay for it. Your precept that only those who drive benefit from roads is both short sighted and incorrect.
Look, I'm not suggesting that we do away with roads. And I even think we should support them to some extent from general taxation. I believe that the extent that we currently do, however, is too great. If we'd concentrated a bit less on promoting road-building, we might have avoided the sprawl problems in the US today that makes a public transport solution so hard to implement. Since we're still adding to the problem, we can still try to re-allocate funding more logically. I'm also not sure that better roads bring in more business better than other amenities. Workforce quality and availability, proximity to similar or synergistic businesses, nearby natural resources, even access to other modes of transportation besides roads also contribute. Furthermore, passenger cars operating on roads are not the only viable form of surface transportation.
Also, I was born with myopia, you insensitive clod.
I am not a crackpot.
...actually, my cost is exactly $0.00. My employer foots the bill (and counts it as a benefit, like a huge chunk of PDX area employers do). IIRC, the employers who do this end up paying quite a bit more than what it would cover, since on average, not everyone who works here takes the train. But then, on average, most employees around here seek it as a bennie if they have to commute.
I do agree that on average, the ticket price is ridiculously small compared to operating expenses. OTOH, even if the fare were to double, it would still be one hell of a bargain. Consider that it normally costs a commuter $10-15 a day to park his car in downtown PDX (unless he has the rare employer that offers free/validated parking), and this isn't counting gasoline costs. The ticket costs ~$5 now round trip if it takes more than two hours to do everything (fare schedule here), or $86 for a monthly pass. Broken down, it's still hella cheap at twice the price (and doubling the fees, while hard on the more impoverished among us, would likely pay for the system on its own).
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Which court was rough on Microsoft? I know there have been some scary sounding decisions handed down, but then the courts wimp out in the penalty phase and basically make Microsoft pay a file equivalent to about 1% of their earnings. Which court has really slapped Microsoft around in a way that really hurt them?
go read about south America, where several nations (bolivia comes to mind) have "sold" the exclusive rights to make drinking water to a private, profit driven company. Make sure you read about the riots, protests, cost increases, and even how some protesters were killed. Meanwhile, we take it for granted here.
You are aware that many industrial nations have private profit driven (hence evil?) companies run their water systems? The problem, typically, is that the private (western) company takes on the concession to operate a formerly state run utility. Typically, they're a company that has performed at least reasonably well in their home countries as utilities, and they're experienced operators that know what's involved in running a proper system. It's a bidding process, so they go as low as they think they can while still making a profit. Then they get there and they find the infrastructure is much worse than the government led them to believe, and that huge amounts of money are necessary to fix everything. At the same time, they are unable to collect (sometimes under the table) subsidies from the government the way their predecessor did, and they find they are losing money and are forced to raise prices. Insert peasant rage, particularly if many have been receiving free water, electricity or whatever from their vote-buying politicians since time immemorial.
The fact that otherwise stand-up countries have failed in countries like Bolivia seems to me more an indictment of Bolivian politics and society than the companies themselves. If their government had been as competent and the deal as well planned and executed as those that first world nations deliver, there wouldn't have been these problems.
>>>Most people here in the USA are bred to be against public transportation. They think it's "icky" and they see them belching black smoke so it's "dirty"...
>>>
STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. You're making a claim without any kind of support, and apparently based upon one teenage daughter's opinion. *I* have no problems with trains, and have ridden the D.C. Metro many times. My objection is that train travel is too slow. My boss and I both live in the same town, but it takes him 1.5 hours to get to work (by train). It only takes me 45 minutes (by car). Why would I choose a method of travel that's twice as long?
And no the "you can read on the train" argument doesn't fly, because I prefer listening to the news radio in the morning. Or music. Or books-on-tape, so my time in the car is not wasted.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I assume you were against the Civil Rights movement and support the argument that if citizens in as state or town had a referendum on driving black people outout then that was peachy and ok as it was the government doing *exactly* what it's citizens had asked?
Because your argument was the exact same argument many people made in the early - mid 20th century. There's rules and laws preventing the government from acting in all sorts of ways for (generally) a very good reason.
Saying that the majority of people demanded it so all further discussion is over is nothing but tyranny.
Just sayin.
I think you have a good point here on the whole. However, it's worth noting that the fundamental difference here is that, in the Civil Rights case, the constitution, which all states presumably treat as the highest authority, was on the side of Civil Rights. Basically, by agreeing to the constitution, states and citizens gave up certain rights to self determination. The constitution says nothing relevant to this issue.
Or at least require a certain amount of work (even a token) in order to receive benefits.
I could tell you about American Alarm in Orange County, CA who writes contracts seemingly with 1 length filled into a blank on the front but then a blanket 5 year term overriding on the back.
They have this fat, ugly, semi-female "non-lawyer" (I wrote that for her benefit since she routinely scours the internet looking for negative news about American Alarm so that she can bully sites into cleaning it up... Hi, you ugly piece of crap that was obviously raped as a child to do what you do and look like you look!)
Anyway, she sits at small claims court all day every day suing all their customers to get money for service they never provided and obtained through fraudulent means and the court backs them up, all day, every day in a complete travesty of justice...
How's that?
That's not really a "subsidy" but simply reducing the State gas tax from ~50 to ~30 cents, if you buy E85 ethanol. It's unfair to have disproportionate taxation like that, but E85 users are still paying a gasoline tax per gallon. They are not getting-off scotfree.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
As I understand it when Telcom services were deployed across the country, providers were given "regional monopolies" as rewards for investing in the infrastructure needed to bring cable and internet to their area. I don't have any details on this and I believe it would be for a limited time. Also this sort of "regional monopoly" only exists until a competitor comes along. Perhaps TDS Telecommunications feels they are entitled to all of the Internet business in the area at the fees they choose to set. That may explain part of the motivation to sue.
Raise gas taxes and people use less gas. It's a regressive tax and if you push it too hard you'll see a massive flight to higher millage cars or even non-petrol cars.
This is arguably a reasonable goal in itself, and would be an example of the use of taxation to enforce a social policy. Whether or not you approve of the use of taxes in that way is a political question.
As a second point everyone benefits from good roads not just those who drive on them.
There most certainly is public and communal benefit to having decent physical communications (road, rail, waterways, air) and your message identified at least some of those reasons (snipped for brevity) but that does not mean that it is necessary to subsidize them from general taxation. For example, with modern technology, it's quite possible to make toll roads work even at the local level.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Umm, yeah, we don't need them. Volunteer fire departments are more efficient and don't bankrupt cities with the longstanding obligations they create, as they have in California, and now in Houston.
When I had a house fire a few months ago, the first truck on the scene was from a volunteer fire department, and they got there something like 3 minutes after 911 was called. Damn efficient, and at no cost to the taxpayer.
The government must play the roll of providing the lubricant that keeps the wheels of society from galling each other. To much grease, and you clog the machine...Dirty grease will destroy the machine...continue the analogy at your own risk.
The problem is when the government tries to control the players instead of just insuring that informed people have the ability to work with one another.
FDA when they force producers to inform user of the contents of package food *** GOOD. FDA when they decide what foods can and can't be sold *** BAD.
The US Constitution gives the responsibility for maintaining roads and a postal service to the federal government, because this is a sensible way to run a society. With a well kept system of roads, the players in society can interact more easily. A postal system that reaches all allows the players to interact easily. Before Ben Franklin's postal system, there was no way to reliably send a letter to another town, let alone another State. (It was Ben that pushed for the USPS, wasn't it?)
Electricity and data service now falls under the same category as the roads and USPS. It just doesn't make sense to condemn private land to hand over to a private company. Never did. Never will. The government should be responsible for running data and electric lines, and running an exchange that allows private players to interact with one another.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
That's at worst a lie and at best a complete misdirection.
Your state gas tax does not cover your roads. Your state gas tax plus federal money covers your roads.
No state can pay for their roads without the fed money. That's how the feds force things like speed limits and drinking ages on the feds in direct violation of the constitution.
It's completely voluntary but the penalties are so bad that in effect it's not.
I wonder who they got that idea from ;-)
Well I was specifically thinking about the EU case, which I suppose is a little unfair for this US-centric conversation. But in summary, Microsoft was fined 500 million Euros ($800 million) which was I believe the largest fine anywhere ever at the time, certainly the largest ever in Europe. They were also forced to change some of the things in Windows, to offer competitors products when installing and so on. People will argue about how much this really "hurt" Microsoft, but it seems a fairly significant ruling to me, certainly more than a slap on the wrist.
Must be nice to have enough free time to stalk fat slobs.
I my post was on capitalism because that is the word the GP used. Capitalism exists with government interference, and in that case cannot be considered free enterprise. For example, corporations that received assistance from the government during the bail-out, while still part of a capitalist system, are not operating on free enterprise principles, as they depend on the government.
Boy, what an idiotic thing to say. Do you actually believe that a bunch of people joining forces to build a service that they can benefit from is anything like tyranny? Do you even have a clue about what is this thing called tyranny?
Well, yeah. I want higher gas taxes -- and correspondingly lower general taxes. We're saying that the roads are paid for by the users, except they're not, so that would be the way to correct that.
The problem with a petrol tax is that as auto makers increase fuel economy across their product lines, that source of revenue will diminish with time. A better alternative would be a combination of congestion pricing and miles-travelled metering, which would be directly proportional to actual road usage.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
Killing people before they can do anything whatsoever will prevent them from future crime, true.
Judge Death, from 2000AD, had a simple argument to this effect: Crime is committed by the living. Kill all of the living and you eliminate all crime.
Roads are used to provide goods and services that everyone uses (food, furniture, home heating oil, police, fire, ambulance, etc). My mother-in-law doesn't drive, but she still benefits from roads.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Except when it comes to the delivery of a service, the government almost always does it with less waste and less expensive.
NEWSFLASH: politician don't do the work, design the systems, or plan for maintenance. Experts are hired to do that. When was the last time you say the mayor og a city laying sewer pipe? or the president delivering mail?
It was the government that create arpanet, it was a politician that allowed everyone to use it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Please explain how this is relevant. Untreated fires burn down entire cities.
As sad as it may be, a lot of us non-USA citizens picture all Americans in this light. Purely selfish and self-centred. I'm alright Jack. Not my problem. Fuck 'em all. My way or the highway.
Very, very sad world to live in.
Does the saying "you only get out what you put in" mean anything in the USA?
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
So you agree with me then: The money collected from gasoline/diesel taxes *exceed* the amount needed to maintain the roads. There are excess funds.
I never said either way, as I don't know. My point was only that subsidizing Light Rail is not a misappropriation of funds when you consider that it does improve road conditions.
I hate to break it to you, but there are private water companies here in America. Aqua America comes to mind - they make money from me - and I still seem to be able to drink clean water and take a shower in the morning . . .
Here is how to privatize fire departments successfully...
If you buy fire protection for $20 a year, then they'll extinguish your burning house for free.
If you do NOT buy fire protection, then they'll extinguish your burning house, and then send you a bill for $7000.
Naturally, homeowners' associations will make it mandatory, but that isn't necessary.
This solution is so simple, and with all the correct incentives in place. In fact the solution is so easy that you MUST be either stupid or dishonest (or both) to not see it.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
Clearly you are clueless. Have you rad any Jefferson? do you understand what "federal" means? "republic"?
Have you actually read anual goverment budget? read the balance sheet? compared overruns between private and government projects?
NO? STFU.
I got a clue for you, there are man things the government does with far less waste then private companies.
FAR less.
Look at private water distribution. Horrible expensive, incredibly bad service, no accountability. Compare that to government distributed water system. Same goes for roads, postal delivery, military.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I plan to move to Australia later this year. Don't fuck it up before I get there. (It already seems to be the only developed country with worse internet service than Canada, which makes me sad, although the weather looks better.)
I'm there now, a great country. The internet isn't that bad if you know where to look. You can get slow unlimited 512/512 but with NO limits on use, explicit or implied. Or ADSL2 with 150GB of transfer for $70. It's a matter of shopping around.
How do you kill that which has no life?
You do know how big the infrastructure debt is, right? It is $57 billion in Canada. Ottawa collects about $5 billion each year in gas taxes, which are higher than the USA. That's not enough to maintain the existing infrastructure, and the infrastructure debt is forecast to balloon to $110 billion by 2027.
Basically that means that, we can't afford to maintain our roads and bridges as is, and one day we'll either have to raise taxes, or do with less.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
in 1984 that is
The role of the criminal justice system is repression. Justice is retribution: Punish those who do evil, and in measure to the evil done. Focus on deterrence, rehabilitation, or any other goal weakens repression and is a hazard to society.
There, much more accurate
Dregs of society? Hell yeah! Add the Jews to the list too? Hell yeah! What about the blind, they're no good to anyone? Yeah, add them to the list too. Any generic part of society I can't stand? Put them at the top of the list.
Fucking prick.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Right, the rest is covered by use taxes on commercial trucks and shipping services. Just like they would be under a free market. Individuals would be able to use the road for little or no cost, perhaps a hundred dollar a year pass (which they would save in gas).
Those who use the roads the most should pay for it, and they do, except that right now they also fund huge bureaucracies, rather than just funding road repairs.
Who said anything about talking to them? As was pointed out, they're using public transportation too. Or do you think the fat slobs only ride during non-rush hour times?
You do realize that roads deteriorate even when not regularly in use, right? Because I believe that is what GP's point was.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Fun thing: Crassus, the third man who ran Rome during the Caesar-Pompey-Crassus triumvirate, made his wealth that way; he bought the land for a joke sum, and if the person declined, his firefighters just didn't do a thing.
Comparing costs in our economy to costs in another isn't necessarily apples to apples. You might be all for a temporary tax now, but be prepared to pay that tax forever. The government almost never gives back a source of revenue once it gets its grubby hands on it. Those few politicians brave enough to roll back taxes get stabbed in the back by their "peers" in government.
Maybe you can afford more taxes, but an additional tax might be enough to push many families over the edge right now. There are lots of families who have managed their finances well, worked hard, and are now in dire straits because of one or more job losses. No way should people like them have to bail out politicians who have overspent their state's piggy banks. I look at the mess my own state is in, and I see greedy politicians, fat jobs for connected insiders, pet projects, pork barrel boondoggles, and all around wasteful, easy spending. Oh, but you can't afford a teacher for my kids' schools? Imagine that.
I love the idea of promoting fuel efficiency and alternative transportation. A Prius doesn't fit everyone's transportation needs. I love the idea of more public transportation. Most of the US is too spread out to benefit from it.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Right, they granted a monopoly (which is fascist). Monopolies are just as bad as governments in most cases. If they paid based on the quality of the water rather than giving them assured income no matter the water quality, they would see better results within months.
That and the quote - no wingnut would ever paraphrase that sentence.
Though it's clear the parent was meant to be a parody, it was about a year ago that a guest appeared on a drive-time program on KGO810 who advocated, among other things, EXACTLY WHAT YOUR POST PROPOSES. He said (with a perfectly straight face when challenged by the host) that all fire departments should be subscription-based, like insurance companies.
If your house is on fire, and you haven't paid your bill, this guy said very specifically that your house should be allowed to burn to the ground. Doesn't matter if the fire truck is right around the corner, if you don't pay, they don't spray.
Remember, this wasn't some nobody from the deep Ozarks here, this was a guest on a drive-time program on arguably the biggest talk-radio station in the country. People like this exist.
My city has private busses. They provide better service than the city busses ever did, even providing door to door service. They pay full taxes on their gas, and they would pay the full toll on any private roads they use. Society would benefit, as use is correlated with cost, meaning that the economy becomes more efficient, with those who can telecommuting rather than going in to work and wasting gas, wear on roads, etc.
But the major driver for bringing in businesses is overall economic health in the community. I'd argue that well run community likely has better roads because they know how to run the community... Whereas, I don't believe that good roads will lead to a well run community.
Personally, I'm mostly a libertarian, but I consider a mixture of gas taxes and property taxes reasonable for the road system.
A major thouroughfare or highway can easily be paid for via gas taxes, but the intra-community roads not so much. You reach a point where weathering is a higher destructive force than wear from vehicles. In such a case, since roads are still useful even if you don't have a vehicle, property taxes to pay for the road system that enables the fire, police to get to your house is reasonable.
Of course, I'm also interested in funding alternatives that I think have a chance of working - like personal rapid transit. In order to compete with vehicles, you have to beat them on as many fronts as possible - Cost, speed, and convenience. If you can get it so that your system is faster than cars(due to not having to stop all the time or deal with rush hour traffic), more convenient(drop you off IN the mall, not in a parking lot with a hundred meter walk), and cheaper(regenerating electric, not gasoline), you're golden.
Back on neighborhoods - You might be surprised at what a good road layout can do to help a community. Modern 'funnel' systems actually tend to marginalize neighborhood interaction because it emphasizes driving. You actually need more interconnects, not less.
I don't read AC A human right
Thomas Jefferson set up public universities and hospitals, wtf are you on about.
There are a few roles that government must play. It must provide its citizens protection and a working legal framework. But when the government decides to dabble in providing other services, especially ones in which there already exists private enterprise, there is nothing gained but bureaucracy and government bloat.
A lawful and just government is established by its citizens in their own interest. As such, government's job is precisely what the citizens define it to be, no more and no less.
In this case, TFS specifically mentions referendum - I do not know of any more democratic way to decide on what powers to delegate to the government.
Thomas Jefferson must be rolling over in his grave.
So what? He's just one man, not a prophet of God. In some things he was right, in others, not so much. Don't try to invoke ancient names as if they were some kind of magical spells; "think of Thomas Jefferson" is not fundamentally any different from "think of the children".
It's notable that privately bottled water costs easily as much or more per gallon than the gasoline we complain about.
Municipal water is much cheaper.
True, but at least the government water is available to all. Given the choice between water I need to filter, and no water, I'll gladly buy some filters.
That worked out so well when they did exactly that with TDS, the local incumbent. So well that they passed the referendum to build it themselves.
"Just pass a law against [the monopoly]," Lord help us. Unless the government has set up the monopoly by process, the monopoly can't exist by definition: "monopoly" in this context meaning "an exclusive privilege to conduct this service, granted by government authority." I.e., it was a stupid government process which created the monopoly in the first place! And you want to cure that by more government process? Sure, I've got this great bridge to sell you.
So there are only two possibilities in this case:
1) The corporation does not have a legally protected monopoly, in which case there is nothing legally to prevent another corporation, or the government, from competing. If no other corporation wants to compete, the government is free to obtain the desired result by taking the initiative.
2) The corporation does have a legally protected monopoly, in which case the government has already acted stupidly, and it is going to be difficult to rectify, because of existing guarantees.
My read of the story is that case 1 is the situation in effect in the case being discussed. All that is required is for a judge to throw out the patently baseless lawsuit, and the municipality to proceed, preferably with their middle finger raised. So they will end up with two competing providers. So what? There is then no story; just an object lesson.
Strange how the lessons of history are ignored. The same problems we are having with broadband roll out in the States and the importance to the economy, is so close to what the rail roads where like around 1880. Massive monopolies with their hand in to everything including telecommunications.
Living in Chile
The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution respectfully disagrees with your "guiding principle" notion.
To be fair though, I cannot say that I am familiar with the Minnesota state constitution, so it's entirely possible their constitution has something similar.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
They already got burned once by trying to get a private enterprise to provide them service. I'm guessing that Verizon would require the same exclusivity deals for the fiber they laid that TDS would have. Now, the city owns the fiber, and can allow anyone to use it.
Take a look at New England, Verizon sold off its lines there, and now the company is filing for bankruptcy and their service is horrible.
I know someone that works for the company that Verizon sold their lines to. She said the employees refer to the company as "the F-word" in public because they don't dare let people on the street find out that they work there.
Private enterprise at its finest, huh?
When it comes to ObamaFireCare, remember, we are: Taxed Enough Already For American Red Truck Socialism.
TEA FARTS ?
I think you are afflicted with some rather unfortunate misconceptions about the criminal nature of Australia. Permit me to enlighten you.
I recently lived in the Victorian suburb of Sunbury, from mid 1995 to Febuary of this year. The first house we lived in, in this suburb, had been used by the most recent prior tenants as a marijuana factory. The prior tenant of the third and last house I occupied in the suburb, was also a drug dealer.
In December of last year, I had an attempted home invasion and the roof of my house set fire to, in two seperate incidents, both within the same weekend, and an attempted mugging at the railway station opposite the house on Christmas Day. Five weeks later, I then had my steel mailbox thrown through my bedroom window, causing me to wake up in a bedroom covered in broken glass.
In 1997, in the same suburb, I was throttled (not fatally, thankfully) while walking back from a local service station one night, not long after I had also been witness to a rape occurring in a nearby carpark. There was another incident in 2000 where an individual displayed a concealed, sawnoff shotgun to myself and some friends, although fortunately nobody was injured.
Judging by the responses to my initial post, gun crime seems to be the only form that at least some Americans focus on. By that metric, yes, Australia might seem like a safe place to live. Firearms have been made sufficiently illegal here that they are difficult to obtain.
However, if you think the absence of guns alone makes the country safe, think again. What Australia (particularly Victoria) *does* have, is a very strong, fundamental culture of anti-intellectual, racist, homophobic, drug and alcohol-influenced group violence.
It is becoming virtually impossible to turn on the evening news in Victoria now, without hearing about numerous incidents of the most appalling violence. Recently we had the body of a woman found stuffed in a barrel in Docklands, and on the same day, another headline described an incident the previous night where a Melbourne bar had entirely erupted into violence. Police were particularly shocked about the fact that literally anything which came to hand was used as a weapon; bottles, tables, chairs, anything.
Melbourne's liquor licensing law is currently under review, due to the epidemic of late night and early morning, alcohol fuelled group violence. Just a few days ago we also had a rap concert here where almost the entire audience became part of a brawl, and we have recently had a large number of severe bashings of Indian immigrants, as well.
You are not going to be migrating to a safe country. You are going to be migrating to a country where it is becoming impossible to go to an innercity bar at night, without virtually patron in said bar becoming involved in brawls, to the point where some venues are now not allowed to use glass bottles or drinking vessels of any kind, because of the risk of their being used as weapons.
You are going to be moving to a country which calls itself multicultural, but where in the city at least, it is not safe to not have white skin.
You are going to be moving to a country where intellectualism is not part of the resident culture, and intelligence is not valued. You are moving to a country where, for the common person, the primary industries are housing construction, or if you're lucky, hospitality. If you're planning on working in IT, I hope you're already qualified, because if you're not, you won't be getting training unless you're willing to pay through the nose for it.
You are going to be moving to a country where, in the cities at least, it is no longer safe for a person to live in a house alone. Another of our recent crimes involved a 60 year old schizophrenic man who had his house broken into, and who was then doused in petrol (yes, the man, not his house) and set alight by a group of 17 year olds. When the police asked the youths what they were doing, the reply was that they were just out having a bit
In words/theory maybe, but in practice it has a few implementation issues.
If it is a murder case the intended victim is the victim and due to being dead has a hard time killing anyone.
If the victim isn't dead, it is hard to know that the attacker intended to kill the victim/would have done so in quite a few cases.
Unless all you mean is having a death sentence that is executed by the victim. Even if you assume that one is still alive, this means in addition to being attacked, the victim now has to decide if he/she/it is convinced that the person they are supposed to kill is indeed the attacker, whether or not he should die etc. which in some people I think can cause another serious trauma in addition.
So from that perspective, I think that solution completely falls flat on the "protecting the weakest" idea, and to exaggerate a judicial solution that works only really well for the strongest seems a bit pointless...
And that doesn't even account for what to do in case the "victim" ended up killing someone innocent...
If it isn't clear, the argument that death sentences are bad hinges in large part on the fact that a prison sentence isn't final and to some degree can be "undone".
Or if you look at it from a "security system" perspective, if you do it properly and people wrongly imprisoned get compensated it means that those responsible for wrongly imprisoning someone will pay a penalty in case of a prison sentence, whereas killing someone innocent comes at no immediate cost (the best you could do is introduce a compensation for the relatives, which comes with all kinds of other issues and also may discourage the relatives from disclosing evidence until after that innocent was killed) and actually reduces the risk of it being found out.
Or spoken differently: death sentences possibly inherently have the perverse effect of encouraging applying it to innocents which prison sentences have not or not to the same degree.
STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. Where exactly did the GP even mention reading books on the train?
Do you even know what a strawman argument is?
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
You did the maths behind that then? Y'know, figured the average number of fires vs the average cost of putting them out, found a happy little break even point on the population of your community there? Of course taking into account variations in fire seasons, cost of equipment purchase vs maintenance, etcetc. Not to mention all the costs involved when your house burns down will often enough lead to bankruptcy-- making it awful hard for your private fire department to collect that $7000.
...unless of course I just fell for a fantastic troll. In that case, Bravo! You had me at "homeowner's association" :)
"Simple Solutions" are easy enough to invent. Go ahead and implement it though, looks like you've got a sound business plan.
+1 Disagree
Geeze, a 50Mb connection for $50/month? How can I get my city sued by TDS telecommunications?
And most cities have privatized ambulances anyway
I have fiber already, through my electric company. Just installed this morning.
It's working great. Does Telephone, TV and Internet.
Thank you Electric Power Board. Thank you.
Goodbye Comcast, Goodbye!
because here is how it would work on practice:
--you buy you insurance for 20$
--your house burn and they extinguish the fire
--they bill you for 7000$ anyway because your fire was not covered according to the contract (too bad you forgot to read the fine print).
Oh dear god! They're getting money out of my Brass Slacks and Grass Snacks!
What exactly is it that you think government is, other than a group of people making decisions for themselves? That said, every time "government' provides a service, it's nothing more than a group of people providing something to themselves. Go spread your libertarian nonsense somewhere else.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
If something like this happens in the future. The lesson to take away from this is to make sure an injunction is filed so the local telco's cannot build any new infrastructure while they are suing your city/town.
Well, yeah. I want higher gas taxes -- and correspondingly lower general taxes. We're saying that the roads are paid for by the users, except they're not, so that would be the way to correct that.
The problem with a petrol tax is that as auto makers increase fuel economy across their product lines, that source of revenue will diminish with time. A better alternative would be a combination of congestion pricing and miles-travelled metering, which would be directly proportional to actual road usage.
Just because it wont work forever doesn't mean you can do it for now. Consider a car analogy -- within a car analogy -- why repair your car when in the long run it will be junked, and furthermore, you'll eventually be dead?
I am not a crackpot.
While that would be nice, certain cities (like mine) have made it illegal for anyone to run a bus service other than the City.
"We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
I have actually had this very discussion with several [libertarian;restorationist;wingnut]* people I know, particularly as part of a discussion about public health care. They argued several times that private groups DO, in fact, establish and fund private fire services, and that everyone should do the same. They would not be dissuaded from their argument (in particular when confronted with "so when Joe's house burns down because he didn't/couldn't pay for the service and catches yours on fire, you're okay with that?" Response: "But I'll have fire coverage to put out my house.")
They then followed up with insisting that FORCING people to have a health care plan (private, public, or whatever) was completely immoral, wrong, illegal, and a dangerous idea.
* Note: these are not necessarily equal NOR exclusive.
Bah, your narrow view of government services neglects the fact that we all benefit from roads, public education, police, a postal system, etc whether we use it or not. We are not islands, as much as the libertarians might like to pretend that we are.
If you think that only the users of a service should pay for it, do you think that children should pay for their schooling? Should crime victims pay for the police? Should we charge natural disaster victims for aid such as that provided by FEMA? I doubt you think that, because you understand that those things are good for us all.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
You can make any place sound terrifying by aggregating stories of violent crimes from across the nation. Australia's violent crime rate is moderately higher than Canada on average but still lower than than the U.S.
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
If you're going to sit there and say "False" then you'd better have some evidence that shows that gas taxes are sufficient for maintenance costs.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
>>>>>Roads are funded by user fees. Those who drive pay - those who don't, don't pay.
>>
>>Right and if the polluted water or air isn't passing through your sources then you shouldn't have to clean it up..... If some indigent gets sick or insured you shouldn't have to pay for their care.
Fine.
If that's your view (not just you but all the persons that rejected my Gas Tax==usage fee for roads==fair), then I want your taxpayer dollars to buy a field for my modeling club so we have someplace to fly our airplanes, instead of renting one from the local farmer. Also I enjoy basket-weaving, so why don't you ship some free reeds to my house, paid with your taxes? For that matter what am I paying my house mortgage for? Let the taxpayers pay the bill instead.
When you start to make arguments like you made (quoted above), justifying why others should pay YOUR bills, then there's no end to what people like me can demand we be provided for free. Some expenses like police to protect my rights make logical sense. Others such as making me replace a chain-smokers' burnt-out lung, don't. He created that problem himself; let him pay the bill.
>>>If children are stupid enough to have poor or dysfunctional parents, screw em
Children can not provide for themselves. They cannot go get a job and improve their condition, so they need a government to protect them. An adult has no such excuse; even in a downturn like this eventually things will improve and he/she can start earning money. An adult might need a *temporary* safety net, but is not entitled to a lifelong government check.
(shrug).
Oh fuck it. I'm going to quit engineering and live off welfare for the rest of my life. If fools like ye are going to give me free money out of your taxpayer waller, then I'll take it. SUCK0RS! /end sarcasm. I was just joking of course. ;-)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
That's not really a "subsidy" but simply reducing the State gas tax from ~50 to ~30 cents, if you buy E85 ethanol. It's unfair to have disproportionate taxation like that, but E85 users are still paying a gasoline tax per gallon. They are not getting-off scotfree.
"Subsidy" doesn't imply I'm buying all their Ethanol/Gas for them. The word doesn't imply that and I didn't either. Subsidize has nothing to do with scotfreeage.
But it's pointless hair-splitting to debate calling something a "subsidy" for A but not B vs. "reduced tax" for A, but not B, when both products A and B are essentially fungible, as is the money paid for them. It's makes no difference in the wallet how you got to spend less.
And as for your sig, real men use pitch torches.
I am not a crackpot.
Government is tyranny, but so is living in any society where enough people around you deciding to do something forces you to go along too. Democracy may be the most fair form of government, but it sure isn't free: I did NOT want to have my money supporting a war in Iraq, but I really had no choice. It sucks, but that's what it means to live with other people: sometimes you don't get your way. If a large enough majority wants something, they will get their way, even if it is something as inane as the return of slavery.
In the case of civil rights, the majority of the country was against racist laws, and we forced other states and cities to go along, even with some laws of questionable constitutionality. However no one cared except some bigots, and frankly those bigots are probably better off now unless they happened to remain bigots. Idiots.
Qxe4
"Saying that the majority of people demanded it so all further discussion is over is nothing but tyranny."
No one said that the discussion is over when the majority makes a decision...it's just that society doesn't function if you wait around for every last naysayer to stop bitching.
And btw, your analogy is terrible. Comparing asking for broadband to denying civil rights? Seriously? Go drink more coffee.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
>>>So, I no longer wish to pay for lights in areas of town that I will never visit
You idea is reasonable, albeit the scale is off. If you expanded to the level of the state, where you are not required to pay for lighting in California if you live in Oregon, then I agree with your statement 100%.
>>>can see no purpose to having my tax dollars pay for the Interstate Highway system in New Hampshire as I will never go there
You probably don't (or if you do, it's just pennies). New Hampshire interstate is covered by New Hampshire drivers paying Gax taxes or tolls as they use the road.
>>>will not subsidize additions to my local airport as I do not fly
You probably don't. Airports expenses are owned by the government, but covered by the airlines' leases and the tolls charged for parking.
>>>and refuse to subsidize the building of fire houses except in the area that I live in.
Sounds reasonable to me.
>>>refuse to pay for schools because I have no children
I wouldn't go that far, but when you do have kids, and decide to send them to a private school, why should you have to pay double tuition each year (both the government school and the private school). Talk about being raped..... not even Microsoft does things like that. I would say that if your kids are going to a private school, and you can provide a receipt for that bill, you should be exempt from school taxes that year. That way you're only paying ONE tuition rather than two.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I don't think that the politicians are going to be the ones A) running the ISP and B) installing fiber lines.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
The problem with privatizing something like fire departments. Let's sat you don't pay for private fire department service and your house is burning down. Do you negotiate the price as your house is burning? If you don't, they might charge more than the house is worth to put out the fire. The catch is, who could bargain for a better deal under these circumstances. This is true for all emergency services.
I agree. Most utilities are privately owned, regulated monopolies. I think internet should be too. (Or if feasible, have multiple providers like in the Dialup era.)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
You are right that the role of the criminal just system is to make the streets a safer place, and that we should focus on rehabilitation and prevention not punishment,
BUT
a large percentage of the people in US jails (at least in California) are gang members. They continue operating in the gangs while in jail, and once they get out, they keep doing illegal gang related activities. Gangs haven't penetrated Canada and Australia the same way they have here.
Qxe4
that's all very complicated and probably expensive to administer. How about we pay for it out of the general fund?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Amazing.
I was discussing rural homes far, far away being subsidized for long-distance electric/phone hookups, and somehow you twisted it into an argument about innercity slums. What the fej??? (shrug). Perhaps if the rural homes were not subsidized, then the poor city folk would have lower electric/phone bills.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Dear people bitching about government,
Get a clue.
The government doesn't have a mind of its own, the people you elect to the positions DO.
If you live in America you CAN control the government, you are just too lazy to do so.
Just like corporations do no wrong, they can't, they are not alive.
If you want to fix the problem stop treating these organizations (government and corps) as protection umbrellas for the people operating them. Start actually holding these people responsible.
As long as you let a CEO walk away after screwing people over or polluting the environment because he/she was 'protected under the corparation' then this will continue. You give them a free pass, they'll use it. There are very few people who are qualified for these positions because they will do it 'for the good of the people', and as some citizens realize, the people who will do it 'for the good of the people' don't want anything to do with those jobs because without the bribes and other benefits you can exploit in those positions, the jobs are rather shitty jobs to have.
You can fix this crap with a simple solutions, if you weren't too lazy to look at whos on the ballot rather than checking the box for your favorite team, errrr, political party.
Look at the mess with banking, everyone is upset about these companies paying out huge bonuses and salaries, their excuse is that 'they have contracts with these people', which is funny cause they seemed to ignore all the other contracts they had with the people who invested with them in the first place. Simply make it so in order to get money they have to follow specific rules. If they don't, start putting people in jail, from the CEO all the way down to the accountant who issues the check. EVERY SINGLE ONE of those people can say 'no, I'm not doing it, its wrong'. But they don't, its far easier to just spend my tax dollars and rubber stamp the check than it is to stand up and do the right thing, especially since no one actually holds the people accountable. If you never hold individuals responsible for their actions, theres no reason for them to do the right thing.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
RIGHT ON!
And fuck those fucking socialist public libraries , too!
GOD DAMN that filthy socialist bastard Benjamin Franklin for infecting the U.S. with his "public libraries"!
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
It is not anti-capitalistic. Government corporations get near constant bailouts from the taxpayer, meaning that poorly run, non-profitable ventures continue indefinitely (see the the Post Office, Amtrak). Capitalism means individuals gather capital together to start businesses which generate profits if they succeed. If they don't, they are liquidated, and the poorly allocated resources are spent somewhere else where they will make more money, which benefits society.
Governmental systems aren't created through agreement, they are created by with force (ie at the barrel of a gun). If you don't believe me, stop paying your taxes and see what happens. Open a business without filing the "proper paperwork" and see what happens. Try doing anything productive and see how long it is before men with guns come knocking at your door telling you to stop. See how much time it takes for them to place their boots on the back of your neck and drag you off to a concrete box somewhere. That's if they don't shoot you first.
I'm sure that once you do that, the fat slobs will go get a job and contribute to society. They sure as hell won't decide that they're entitled to a living and go steal stuff.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
What part of what happened here in any way resembles a free market? You have a corporation that has been given a government granted monopoly suing a city for violating an illegal contract by stealing money from its citizens to provide the service that the corporation was supposed to provide.
This is a battle between fascism and communism. Don't pretend that just because the word "corporation" is used that the system is anything like a free market.
Roads and transportation infrastructure provide a general benefit to every participant in the economy. Its how your food gets to you. It's how parts and labor get to repair sites to keep the electricity flowing. It's how goods get to market. It's also how the ambulance gets you to the hospital. Everyone who eats, has shelter, consumes power, works or is any way dependent on someone who does benefits from it. Most of what government does is like this. We subsidize public transportation to get cars off the road (reducing congestion) and reduce pollution. That benefits drivers and everyone else. In fact your gas taxes don't begin to cover the costs of private automobiles in terms of air and water quality, space for parking, roads, etc. Your property taxes are based on assessments that include road frontage because you are expected to benefit from road and the location of the road increases the value of your property. And what about roads to rural areas - where the farms are the people who support their activities? We give the a break because we all need to eat. Does any farm pay in taxes the cost of extending a road to it?
In the topic post for this thread the local monopoly refused to provide a service to the town so the town proceeded to provide it on its own. So the market failed. The market generally has problems with infrastructure. You can compete on electricity supplies, but not the delivery (wires etc.) and the same is true for communications, i.e. telephone, cable etc. That's why we have common carrier laws and regulated utility monopolies. Its even worse with health care. How elastic is demand when it is your life or the life of a loved one at stake?
I agree that government should be limited and should not be in engaging in commerce or other activities that could be better accomplished by private enterprise. I just think that you have a simplistic view especially when it comes to infrastructure. The direct user is not the only beneficiary. I also think that you aren't being realistic in that the markets don't always work well and for somethings we haven't yet found a really good market based solution.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
There is a word for that: Communism.
Of course, granting an exclusive contract to a bus service as happened in my city is called Fascism.
Anyone should be able to drive a big van around and take people where they want to go for money. I don't see why the government needs to be involved, or issue licenses beyond a CDL.
Mod parent UP. This is not a troll by any stretch. That is exactly the purpose of government--it's not supposed to be a money grabbing machine used by politicians to dole out goodies as many seem to think it is today.
I'm pretty amazed too. Your post made an assessment of how all government systems should be paid for, and to support this you cited an example where others pay unfairly for rural residents' services. I merely looked at the general principle that you were proposing (that only users of public services should pay for those services) and cited an example where people's financial means prevent them from paying "their fair share" of the cost of the service, but (in my humble opinion) still deserve to enjoy the benefits of the infrastructure in question, in this case, roads. I don't see this as twisting your argument at all, just raising an example where your system fails to achieve optimal results. Unless, that is, you think that only rural users should follow this pay-for-your-own-services principle, which you did not indicate in your post--on the contrary, you seemed to be advocating the principle everywhere, without excepting poor urban areas.
In any case, if you agree that poor inner city folk need to be subsidized because they don't have the means to pay, and that this is an OK use of govt. money, then we have nothing to argue about anyway. Incidentally, I also think it's unfair that we're subsidizing rural development, and that it should stop.
Saying that the majority of people demanded it so all further discussion is over is nothing but tyranny.
You there, sir, just described democracy EXACTLY.
Which reminds me of a quote I came across recently concerning democracy:
"Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner..." -Unknown
-XcepticZP
The train is great, but one of the reasons you prefer it might be because the train ticket doesn't cover the full cost of operating the train.
Between the car payment, gas, maintenance, etc, I pay $800/mo for a car and it doesn't cover the costs of operating it on the road. What makes you think trains are different?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
So then where does the city get the gasoline?
Oh right, it comes from a gasoline wholesaler. Who has to pay taxes to the Federal government on his gasoline sales.
The Federal government then gives this money back to the states as grants, usually towards fixing federally designated roads and highways.
What were you saying about taxes not being paid?
Franklin was right. There are exactly two things that can never be avoided... death and taxes. Somewhere along the line, the taxes are collected and paid.
Ah I see. Microsoft apparently needs to kick up the lobbying (bribing) efforts for EU officials since they aren't quite yet in Microsoft's pockets like every US politician.
This is the US. The guiding principle is supposed to be that if it's not specifically authorized by the chartering document, the government is prohibited from it.
Only when that requires specific powers. Also, that mainly applies to the fed: state and city government has a freer hand.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
The AC is right, but didn't mention the alternative. It's possible to establish a cooperative among citizens. It's a private entity that is tasked with providing a service for minimum cost, and is funded by the citizen owners to break even. I get my electricity from a co-op, and I pay anywhere from 1/2 to 1/5th as much as my coworkers, who live even in the same county, but live in an area served by a for-profit electric company. The one who lives not merely in a different county but in a different state pays 5X more than me, every month. The geography is basically the same, so you can't tell me it costs the company that serves him 5X as much to provide power. He just has the misfortune to live in a state with a wimpy public utilities commission.
I'm betting the first truck that arrived was also a PICKUP truck, not a pumper truck. I'm not impressed.
How can I be part of the TEAFART party?
No, you succeed in killing all the ones who *got caught*. The smarter ones keep going, and if you think death is a deterrent then I guess there's no organized crime in either Russia or China. Oh wait, there is, on a massive scale.
Government-imposed death provides martyrs and hate for said government and it's supporters.
I haven't had any complaints about Minneapolis drinking water since they finished the current facility, several years ago, and Minneapolis is the largest city in the Twin Cities area.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If you raise gas taxes and most people will move closer to work, take public transit, or carpool, as the extra cost of rent will be cheaper. Electric vehicles are expensive. Less demand will be placed on highways, and less money will be needed to keep feeding urban sprawl. Additionally, less people will be injured or killed in car accidents, and if in a more densely populated area, closer to a hospital.
Good roads do benefit all of us, and we do need some public subsidies, but perhaps our current level of subsidy is encouraging excessive consumption.
That may be, but it apparently didn't stop the US federal government from suing them, with some success.
Who do you imagine paid for this service if not taxpayers?
"Volunteer" fire departments are not free; they are simply staffed by non-full time fire fighters. They are compensated in full for their time spent responding to calls by the municipality.
But then you end up with all the people that live in the cities paying for the roads that the suburbanites (just out of reach of the cities taxing hands) use to get to their jobs or bars or friends' houses.
While I totally agree with your point of view, I cannot let this pass.
The friend pays property taxes. The bar pays property taxes. The entreprise pays property taxes. What you are advocating here is the opposite of network neutrality: you want both ends to pay for one end's traffic.
In fact, I know suburbs that are having taxation issues because they have nothing but residential property taxes. Having people living away come spend their money in your burb is a win, it lowers your tax rate.
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
"1) The way it is done usually is far more costly"
> The way it is done usually
> usually
Some rope and a tree isn't that expensive.
"2) All methods seem to be rather cruel"
Good. I like cruel when it comes to the death of murderers and rapists. Their victims usually suffered more than they will.
"3) You _will_ end up killing innocents."
I know. But we end up killing innocents even without capital punishment. Every time someone is released (early) from prison because a psychiatrist says the guy is OK now and a judge signs the release and this guy kills again, you end up with the exact same situation, someone innocent getting killed. Except that the person killed in this scenario did not get a fair trial.
There should not be any subsidization for these services by non-users. Not one single dime.
If we'd followed that philosophy, half the country would never have gotten electricity or phone service.
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
Your kidding, right? Do you ride the bus? Buses run on Diesel (mostly.) which pays road tax.
I appreciate the nod to embedded taxes, it's often ignored at the debater's peril, but in many States, government gets its petroleum fuel from a separate, tax-free, source. If it's a private bus, absolutely, but most mass transit is socialized.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
For example, with modern technology, it's quite possible to make toll roads work even at the local level.
I, for one, don't want to pay a toll just to run to the grocery store.
Not to mention that *bikers* use roads all the time, and I'm sure the four or five of you out there who are bicycle riders will agree that better roads make for better biking.
The problem with the welfare system is that there isn't enough oversight taking place (on either the welfare workers or the welfare recipients). The reason for that is that oversight costs money, and nobody wants to spend more money on welfare, even if spending more money now would make the system more efficient (and therefore less costly) in the long run...
Some of the people making the budgets are only interested in looking good on the next fiscal quarter's report. They don't care whether that means next year's report will be twice as bad.
pork barrel boondoggles
If it's salted pork, couldn't we use it to feed the homeless or something?
But rather than have government do the job, I think I would simply called Verizon on the phone and said, "We want FiOS and and have the 70% of the population willing to buy it." Corporations have the expertise and experience to do the job, which politicians lack, so let corporations handle it.
That's how it would work in a free market. I've explored this with my town. Comcast wants $60,000 per mile of cable pull. I've consulted with private cable contractors, and this is more than 10x their cost, which is a way of saying, "no", even though they have to say, "yes".
Our next franchise agreement won't use "reasonable cost" as its criteria, it'll be a hard number.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
TDS didn't have a monopoly, they weren't even providing internet service in Monticello yet. They sued because they felt using bond money to fund infrastructure like internet service is unconstitutional competition. The city was forced to put their network rollout on hold for the courts to make a decision. All the while, TDS was rolling out their own network.
It was effectively a stall tactic. I'm sure even TDS knew they would fail in court.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
I disagree with having a postal monopoly (which is deep in debt) or passenger rail monopoly (ditto).
Umm, we don't have a postal monopoly. Ever heard of UPS? FedEx? DHL?
Also, the USPS actually runs at a profit. (I don't know about right now, it's a bad year for everyone, but generally they do).
They don't build the tanks themselves. They ring-up Lockheed or Northrop or some other corporation and have them build the tanks.
They used to build the tanks themselves. They were cheaper and better. Then they introduced what we would call "war profiteers." Except these folks profit even when there isn't a war on.
In any event, nobody's talking about a cable monopoly. If a municipality installs a cable system, that's not a monopoly; it's merely a strong disincentive to competition from everybody else. There's nothing stopping Qwest2010 from laying their own fiber if they want, except the economic unfeasibility.
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
I think I would simply called Verizon on the phone and said, "We want FiOS and and have the 70% of the population willing to buy it."
... to which they might respond, "I'm sorry, sir, but your city does not exist in our computer system. Better luck next time!"
(Yes, I called Verizon to ask when FiOS would be available in my area, and yes, their computer system really is that stupid; no address in my apartment complex is in their system, so they can't even record the fact that I'm interested in their service.)
No, the biggest enemy of the free market is the abused court system in this example...
But even libertarians agree that courts are necessary to enforce the laws of the market.
Give me one rule that can't be exploited, given enough money and willpower.
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
Or the one where Elaine gets stuck on the train with the power out... Actually, the subway featured fairly often. Generally bad things happened when they were there, but pretty much they only showed travel time when something bad happened.
I generally agree with you. But to be fair, given the breadth of legal interpretation of the Commerce Clause lately, the courts may disagree.
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
I haven't looked at the chapter closely yet, though every time it comes up I wonder if decreasing ice cream prices and putting more cops on the streets also lowers the crime rate. Or perhaps eating more peanut butter sandwiches and putting more cops on the street... you get my drift?
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
I wasn't saying this could be avoided... just pointing out that the free market wasn't the actual biggest enemy in the example given. That's all.
Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
If they're taking money out of the gas-tax funds to pay for light rail then they must have a surplus even after these other costs are considered.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
I disagree with having a postal monopoly (which is deep in debt)
Postal monopoly? When did the USPS buy out FedEx, UPS, etc? Last I checked, there's some healthy competition in the postal system.
No, the reason the USPS is having trouble is that a) it doesn't charge enough for postage to cover its costs, b) nobody wants them to raise postage, and c) the people who actually use the USPS a lot get bulk discounts (e.g. Netflix).
I think the USPS could significantly reduce its costs if it let people pay a nominal fee to web-submit a PDF or other document along with a delivery address, which would be automatically printed, enveloped, and sorted for delivery (it would of course be printed right in the postal center corresponding to the delivery address).
If done properly, it would speed up delivery times (since your letter is printed and sorted immediately, to be delivered the following delivery day) and reduce costs (since they're no longer shipping a metric ton of advertising mail across the country, and they would be able to stop operating most of their interstate sorting centers). Remaining physical mail that people send end-to-end would be charged a higher rate that more accurately reflects its cost of delivery.
(Of course, this would probably require that most every company start accepting online payments or at least over-the-phone credit card or EFT payments, because otherwise people would find themselves paying $1.25 in postage to pay their $25 bill.)
The glib part of my line was I was that I'm using two different definitions of 'free market.'
There's the free market that businessmen promote (the first use) and the actual free market that we have little of (the second.)
'Free market' will end up going down in oxymoron history alongside 'jumbo shrimp' and 'military intelligence' at this rate...
Mmmmm.... I think that's an awfully fine distinction, between saying "it's not the free market, it's abuse of the court system"... that's being abused by a market participant pursuing its benefit under every avenue available to it under the free market.
Granted that the GP's point could have been better made by stating that the freedom of the market is often inversely proportional to the economic power of its strongest participants.
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
Then we arrest them, put them in prision where they WILL be made to do something useful. Or shoot them.
If you really want to precisely tax road users you can always switch to the toll-road model for inter-city roads and use municipal property taxes (or better yet, co-ops) for intra-city.
The indirect-benefit comes up a lot, but it's completely misguided. Any indirect benefits derived from the existence of roads are paid for indirectly as well. If response times are efficiently improved by good roads then the police and fire-protection providers will pass on the direct costs of building and using the road to their subscribers. If a business would benefit from improving a road then that business will contribute to funding the improvement. If air quality is becoming an issue then that's naturally an issue for the courts, in the direct sense, but in a similar manner those who care about the decreasing air quality will pay to mitigate it. Thus everyone pays, voluntarily, in proportion to their perceived benefit. Your precept that the only way to provide these goods is by forcing everyone to pay without regard to their perceived benefit is both short-sighted and incorrect.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Good point.
Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
Thank you :)
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
and that costs more than welfare. Why are you so hot to spend money on vengeance against fat slobs?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
the 10th applies to the federal government, and IMO is the most important and revolutionary feature in there. It does not, by extension specifically apply to the states. However its inclusion in the BoR implies that it was one of those fundamental principles that the founders basically took for granted, before realizing that stuff that "goes without saying" probably should be said anyway.
So, it was a guiding principle of the founding of the nation, one of the key values of the republic (like rugged individualism) Not necessarily a binding contract on the state itself, just a "the character of this nation is such that holds this principle dear, unlike other nations which hold other principles dear."
It disturbs me a little that it had to be done by the city; they didn't just enable the citizens to form an ISP by making the easements.. easier. They proposed to actually use city funds to build the thing out.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Well I'm not sure I follow your argument entirely. But I think you're saying you should only get taxed for where you live or operate a business, and people that come and visit you shouldn't be taxed. That would work as a system overall if there was an equal flow into and out of a city and set of suburbs. But what happens in practice, as I see it, is that far more people come into cities from suburbs and use city services (be they roads, public transit, emergency services, municipal courts, parks or whatever) to a far greater degree than the taxes they pay to that city, or that they pay to their own suburb since the cost of running a suburb is so much lower than a full blown city. As individuals, they are taking more from the local government than they are paying (which is somewhat ironic since that is exactly how many suburbanites view low income people within city limits).
It's fine to say that the businesses they work for or use in the city should pay the taxes and then pass it on to these customers or employees in higher prices or lower wages. But is that really going to happen? More likely, I'd say, is that the city is either going to collect less tax and reduce its services (often to bare-bones levels) or the company is going to move to somewhere just outside of city limits where they can operate without subsidizing the city services of all the suburbanites visiting the city. Both of these outcomes (poorer services and businesses moving out) would seem, to me, to fuel the urban decay that is visible in the core of so many US cities. The system works fine for suburbanites, and that's great. But the basic unfairness of who pays for vs who uses the infrastructure leads, or at least helps to lead, to some tricky problems within the cities.
Heh heh. If that's what they used it for, maybe it wouldn't be so outrageous.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Absolutely agreed. Now please come up with an equally black-and-white system that describes exactly which problems warrant elimination, and ensures that only such problem causers are eliminated.
It was effectively a stall tactic. I'm sure even TDS knew they would fail in court.
As punishment for abusing the court system, the city should use imminent domain to take the infrastructure and then lease it back to TDS.
Of course, maybe the whole idea behind the "threat" of a public system was to compel TDS to get off its butt and actually provide the service.
Volunteer fire departments may well be more efficient, but as this is a reply to the humorous parent regarding socialist fire departments I would say volunteer fire departments are no less such. The term "volunteer" refers to the firefighters volunteering to be on call rather as opposed to full time employees, it does not necessarily mean they work for free. Volunteer fire departments still require funding like any service to maintain their equipment, facilities, etc. The source of this funding can be federal, state, or local governement as well as corporate or private donations. Regardless of where this money comes from it needs to come from somewhere and when the smoke clears if you didn't pay the balance then the community did in one way or another.
Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
Oh, I'd be the first to agree that the federal government as it presently exists is substantially beyond the bounds envisioned by the constitution.(and not just on the "liberal" side:Scalia's little gem in Gonzalez v. Raich, for instance, was approximately one step short of arguing "Well, because of the 'butterfly effect' all actions that perturb the atmosphere even slightly constitute both interstate commerce and foreign policy".
I'm just annoyed at all the times that a state or local government does something non-libertarian and people start droning on about the constitution as though its limitations on federal power were actually limitations on government power in general. It is ironic, actually; because such a mistake demonstrates the degree to which the federal government and the federal constitution have grown in power over state governments. Even people who don't like the feds much commonly speak of the constitution as though it is the binding document for all of American government, rather than the operating rules for a federation of states whose own powers(aside from foreign policy, interstate commerce, and various slavery related stuff) were largely unaffected by the document.
This is distinct, of course, from advocating a more libertarian direction in state and local governments, which may or may not be a good idea; but is theoretically legitimate.
Microsoft's net income revenue last quarter was $12.92 billion, according to Microsoft. Assuming that quarter's typical (feel free to check more thoroughly if you suspect it's not), the fine you've discussed was 5.6% of Microsoft's net income for a year, or 1.5% of their revenue. That's not far from what pete6677 said, and as you say it was the largest (in absolute terms) fine anywhere ever at the time.
I'd have to say this supports pete6677's point - courts don't issue fines sufficiently large to really hurt a corporation, and they do issue fines against individuals which exceed their net worth or yearly earnings; then they garnish their income for years to come.
How much you want to bet?
HINT: it was a fire engine.
Except with voluntary contributions, it comes voluntarily.
Or do you think the Red Cross (or the Church of Scientology!) ought to be able to deduct money straight from your paycheck?
Voluntary contributions, obviously. There were thousands and thousands of charitable organizations in this country doing great work long before the government started sticking it's nose into the private lives of its citizens.
Actually, the article is wrong. The legal challenge didn't stop them, they went ahead and installed their fiber network anyways. The article is simply wrong.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Oh come on. The circumstance you refer to as a victim is the very example you are looking for. Wake up buddy. Your dream is giving me nightmares!
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
For my commute in the DC area, the train is vastly superior to driving in terms of speed. In fact, almost everybody I work with uses public transportation and the usage is pretty independent of salary. The only way I can drive faster than the train is if I go into work before 5:45 AM or after 9:30. Even if driving was comparable or faster than the train, the cost of parking is not cheap.
In my previous job in the DC area, my 23 mile commute took about an hour (there was no practical public transportation). Fortunately, parking was free.
Yes, that's what the federal government must do. But the state government must do such things as its constituents require it to do. And a municipal government -- essentially the voice of the community -- more so than state. That's kind of how the system is set up... I daresay that Jefferson would give a nod of approval.
False. The amount of money collected from gasoline/diesel taxes *far exceed* the amount spent on annual maintenance. Where does the excess go? I don't about your state, but in mine the gas taxes are used to subsizde the Light Rail trains. I've sat in the State House and seen the vote for myself - money taken from the road fund and used to build a new rail line from Tysons Corner to Towson.
[citation needed] Not about the misappropriation of funds -- but proof that the income far exceeds the repair, development, and maintenance costs.
Not only emergency services but health care - would you actually negotiate the care given to your child to drive down costs? Do you really think you are going to hunt for lowest cost provider for your child's health (or even life)?
I would claim that this is exactly why we need to have universal health coverage - since when you need it you can not actually make those choices nor should you have to.
Exactly, luckily a new system is developed to make instant DNA identification, and now we can find those with defective genes and have them executed or sterilized, too sci-fi for you? well there's something more down to earth, blame the community, the elders that treat youth like shit and expect benefits all the time, blame the parents that overwork themselves to avoid going home, blame the tv for spewing shit 24/7. There are a lot of problems in this world, but you just want to treat the symptoms, you can try that, the US is doing it, how long do you think it will be until half the population will be in jail? It's past sick, sad and horrid, it's bloody hilarious ...
Microsoft getting fined $800 million for bundling Windows Media Player and not having a decent API for its server programs is the example I'm looking for? Forgive me, but that decision has always struck me as being overkill.
For the people who volunteer their time and receive no monetary compensation that is fantastic but my point is that: 1) volunteer fire fighters don't always work for free 2) to expect that the amount of people who would work for free is always going to be sufficient to satisfy the need for firefighters would be naive 3) for the volunteers that do get paid for their time, it isn't all voluntary donations, tax dollars from some level of government are generally a large portion of their budget. I'm no expert, and there may be some departments that get by on pure donations of time and money, but it is by no means a one size fits all solution.
Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
What you have defined is not a regressive tax, but a Pigovian tax.
In general, taxes discourage the activity being taxed. In most cases, this is bad; if someone chooses to work less because of an income tax, or spend less because of a sales tax, then taxes result in a lower level of labor/consumption than is optimal.
On the other hand, many economists believe that the current level of gasoline consumption is higher than it should be, for environmental reasons. Specifically, they believe that if the price of gasoline accurately reflected the damage that gas does to the environment, then the demand for gasoline would be significantly lower.
Given this assumption, a gas tax essentially has no downsides. You raise revenue, and at the same time, you reduce gas consumption. Both of these are good things.
I should note that, like all consumption taxes, gas taxes are more regressive than income taxes, in that low-income people spend more and save less of their income than high-income people. To be honest, though, I don't really care. There are a million other parts of the tax code that are both regressive and economically inefficient, such as payroll taxes. Fix them first, then you can complain about the gas tax.
>>>The police do their job. The lawyers do theirs. Every other part of the system works; except the judges.
Judges ARE lawyers.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Who gets to decide which are "the ones causing problems"?
I am not a sig.
As a Minnesotan who lives near Monticello and has researched this in some depth, I can say with some measure of certainty that isn't the case. Monticello is a small town. They were tired of waiting for the telcos to bring high speed internet into town and decided to do it themselves.
TDS likely didn't think there was a market for it until the city took action.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
It's only overkill if you give it a biased wording like you did.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The correlation is theoretically because the people most likely to take advantage of legalized abortion are people who wouldn't be providing an ideal home environment if they kept the child, which is going to increase the child's chances of becoming a criminal. The conclusion was so interesting because it's initially surprising, but makes sense when you think about it (which type of phenomena the book is about). They're not just making a "Kill everyone and there'll be no crime!" argument.
--Obyron
... a well placed town backhoe trench. Oops.
I can't tell if you are kidding or not. Most fire departments have volunteers in them, just not enough of them to run all the stations in the country 24/365. How many stations do you think you could run on a volunteer basis on Christmas eve/day. What do you do on Superbowl Sunday when the volunteers call in sick? Hope there are no fires?
BTW: All the equipment and training are paid for by tax-payers and I think they also get things like medical and maybe retirement (as incentives to have volunteers).
"For starters a public education system is the tenth plank of the communist manifesto."
So? Millions of people all around the world benefit from this.
I am an Engineer and classically trained musician, my sister is a violin player and Engineer and my brother (RIP) was a yet another Engineer (he was the dumb one in the family, so he didn't study music).
My parents were a low rank soldier and a primary school teacher.
My grand parents were all poor, subsistence farmers, who could hardly feed themselves and their families (which is why they moved to a big city to find new oportunities, like education).
There is simply no chance whatsoever that my parents could have afforded the real cost of our education, or my grandparents the cost of my parents' one.
The cost to our family? Zilch. Nada. Zero (OK, I paid 200 pesos a year in university, before the Mexican peso dropped 3 zeros from any monetary amounts in order to rationalize the monetary system, after years of high inflation, you do the math, to say the payment was symbolic is an understatement).
The social and economic benefits are obvious. Instead of having 5 more subsistence farmers (or more, since more likely my parents would have had more children had they remained uneducated) the country got 5 people that achieved more socially and economically that would have otherwise been expected.
Education is the pillar of social mobility, and if Marx was all for it, count me as a Marxist then.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So to summarize your position: you object to people (the government) forcing you to pay for a service, but you expect other people to provide you with a service for free.
Typical.
Mart
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Each year when the license tag gets renewed, read the odometer and subtract the previous year's reading. Multiply the distance traveled by the GVWR and the millage rate, and assess accordingly. No mucking about with different rules for different energy sources and no need for Big Brother-esque GPS tracking. It's Not That Fucking Hard!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
"Bikers" pay gasoline taxes anyway. Cyclists would be perfectly happy with 10- to 12-foot-wide paths (equivalent to one vehicle lane), and those paths can use vastly lighter (i.e., cheaper) construction since bicycles weigh so much less than cars. Moreover, the traditional method of making of "better roads" -- adding lanes, increasing speed limits, etc. -- results in facilities worse for cyclists!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
There's something very, very wrong with the prison system if it costs more than welfare on a per-capita basis!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Umm, yeah, we don't need them. Volunteer fire departments are more efficient and don't bankrupt cities with the longstanding obligations they create, as they have in California, and now in Houston.
You realize that taxpayer money is what funds volunteer fire departments, dont you? Because people volunteer to be a fireman at one doesnt magically make a bunch of fire trucks and the fire house and the property and the related taxes appear. Just like volunteer EMS stations... oh, and by the way, you'll find that there are still a number of non-volunteer people who work at either.
Really, research it. I dont have to. I do work for a few of them.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Dont let the GP dissuade you, our criminal justice system is largely effective and the GP is just having a personal rant against Australian Judges (his right, see out Five Fundamental Freedoms (most Aussies don't even know we have them)).
Our justice system does err on the side of caution but this is a good thing, we do not like to convict innocent people, as some famous yank once said, it is better to let 100 guilty men go free then to imprison 1 innocent man.
Youth justice is not our strong point but really bad criminals are removed from society, overall it's pretty safe, the most common crimes in Australia are B&E and Auto Theft, both happen when you're not there. For the most part, Australia's crims are complete cowards.
Oh yes, our internet services are the worst in the western world, I'm on holiday in Thailand and on the Island of Ko Chang the guy running this Internet cafe pays the same for unlimited microwave connection to the mainland as I do for ADSL with a 22 GB download limit (A$60). Similar speed as well although microwave is completely dependent on the weather. But our judges will never permit AFACT (Australia's RIAA) to launch frivolous law suits against downloaders for 100-200 times what they are worth.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
You know when you have several bank notes of the same amount, they're equivalent. You can mix them, exchange them, it doesn't matter where they come from.
I'm pretty sure I learned that in kindergarten or something. You might want to take a remedial course.
Edison bulbs are superior tech to CFLs eliminating mercury poisoning, dim turnons, premature heat-death, and high cost.
If you're as right about roads as you are about light bulbs ... well you're just not.
I haven't looked at the chapter closely yet, though every time it comes up I wonder if decreasing ice cream prices and putting more cops on the streets also lowers the crime rate. Or perhaps eating more peanut butter sandwiches and putting more cops on the street... you get my drift?
Similarly legalizing abortion and eating more peanut butter sandwiches, or legalizing abortion and decreasing ice cream prices will also lower the crime rate. In fact, doing anything that will lower the crime rate plus anything that doesn't increase the crime rate will lower the crime rate! And combining two things which lower the crime rate (abortion and putting more cops on the street) will lower the crime rate much more than something that has no or negligible impact on the crime rate (capital punishment).
Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
ummmm dude, that was the plot of a JAMES BOND movie.
I'm familiar with the argument; I just haven't reviewed the evidence closely enough to determine that legalized abortion is actually a significant variable here. The real issue is the availability of means to limit childbirth, so a more significant factor ought to be ready access to contraception of all kinds. The people who would most stand to benefit from not having kids right now (young and poor) are the ones who are least likely to have ready access to an expensive medical procedure, legal or not.
That's why I suspect that abortion per se may be correlated, but not causally.
NB I support legalized, free abortion on demand, but not because of hoped-for impact on crime.
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
Do you realize that your "Taxed Enough Already For American Red Truck Socialism" organizations acronym is TEAFARTS?
It's not just fat slobs; its lazy people milking the welfare system. And once they are locked up, they won't produce more kids that just end up on welfare and further drain honest people of a living.
>>>Sometimes something is of the collective interest of everybody, then, in general, there are no differences. When everbody agrees (more or less) is when you create a governmental postal system, fire dept., health care, roads, and in this case communication
>>>
A private, but government-regulated corporation has an incentive to cut costs in order to maximize internal profits. A government has no such incentive, and oftentimes the government will misappropriate funds for other pet projects. This is what happened with the retirement monopoly (social security) where money was collected for the purpose of SSI, but instead was spent elsewhere.
Give me a regulated, private monopoly like Baltimore Gas & Electric any day. It's superior than if Uncle Sam ran the show.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>They used to build the tanks themselves. They were cheaper and better.
False. The U.S. Army has almost-never built its own equipment. All the way back to the early 1800s they subcontracted the weapons-making to private U.S. companies or individuals.
.
>>>Umm, we don't have a postal monopoly. Ever heard of UPS? FedEx? DHL?
Yes and they all are forbidden from picking-up or delivering mail to your mailbox. So the Uncle Sam Postal Service has a monopoly over your mailbox.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Yes, but volunteers don't get retirement, or create other longstanding obligations on the taxpayer. It would be a simple thing for fire departments to be funded privately. They could even provide free fire service for residential neighborhoods while charging for their services on commercial buildings. The point is that there are a lot of ways to do things that don't involve having the government pay for all expenses through involuntary taxes.
Paying for capital investments like fire tracks and stations is different from paying for salaries, benefits, union fees, retirement, etc for firemen. Volunteer fire departments cost far less than government run fire departments, and could easily be run without ANY support from any government.
False. The U.S. Army has almost-never built its own equipment. All the way back to the early 1800s they subcontracted the weapons-making to private U.S. companies or individuals.
Pardon me. They used to build and staff their bases themselves, and those were cheaper and better. Now they are built and serviced by private contractors, costing more, and exposing under-trained civilians to battlefield conditions.
So the Uncle Sam Postal Service has a monopoly over your mailbox.
This doesn't impact my life at all. Other shippers are fully able to pick up or deliver from my doorstep. Non-USPS carriers are allowed to handle urgent letters. Regardless, (1) private industry would either provide no coverage or substandard, overpriced coverage in rural areas; and (2) the USPS hasn't taken a taxpayer dime in over twenty years, so I don't see what the problem is.
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
Really? You're honestly comparing execution of hardened criminals to genocide? And this mindless dreck got modded "insightful"?
--Ford Prefect
Just remember, when the government is your ISP then the government 1) controls what you're allowed to access 2) tracks what you do online
I am sure that they are no worse that the others, but my experience with TDS leads me to find no surprises here...
Are you kidding? You have to house people and keep them from escaping. Of course, there's something very wrong with society when people commit crimes so they can have a roof over their heads and food to eat.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Yes, but volunteers don't get retirement, or create other longstanding obligations on the taxpayer.
Wrong again... look up LOSAP.
It would be a simple thing for fire departments to be funded privately. They could even provide free fire service for residential neighborhoods while charging for their services on commercial buildings. The point is that there are a lot of ways to do things that don't involve having the government pay for all expenses through involuntary taxes.
Except that your whole premise is based on incorrect information as to how things currently work.
Paying for capital investments like fire tracks and stations is different from paying for salaries, benefits, union fees, retirement, etc for firemen.
Except, that is exactly what happens... again, look up LOSAP.
Volunteer fire departments cost far less than government run fire departments, and could easily be run without ANY support from any government.
Really? Perhaps, but not for the reasons you suspect. Volunteers get pensions, pension plans, medical, dental and a bunch of other benefits. The non-volunteer members (of VOLUNTEER departments) do not attribute points to their pension plan via LOSAP, but do in other ways (the same ways that paid employees elsewhere would).
Regardless, it is the taxpayers that fund it all.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
As one of these true socialists (I am a volunteer firefighter, no capitalist pig pays my salary), I wish I had mod points.
They sued because they felt using bond money to fund infrastructure like internet service is unconstitutional competition.
No, they sued because they didn't want competition for a service they didn't even provide. The city asked them for it but they refused. It's not the first tyme and I doubt it'll be the last.
All the while, TDS was rolling out their own network.
According to more than one article TDS only started rolling fiber after the city started and TDS took action against the city.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
TDS likely didn't think there was a market for it until the city took action.
The city asking for the company to install broadband should of been a big hint. It wouldn't have taken much effort after that to canvas the city asking people if they wanted broadband. I'd say the fact the company only did anything after the city decided to do something they refused to do says they don't care about the people at all.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
in summary, Microsoft was fined 500 million Euros ($800 million) which was I believe the largest fine anywhere ever at the time
In the 3 months ending on 30-9-09 Microsoft made $7.346 Billion in profits so in effect MS's fine was only a week or two's profit. That's a get out of jail free card. To MS paying the fine is only a part of business, they made much more.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
No TDS lost every battle but still won the war/
Monticello will be screwed, but won't other towns and hamlets now have case law on their side?
Only Minnesota towns and hamlets. The rulings where TDS lost were all state courts not federal. Sure places in other states can try to use the MS rulings but it doesn't mean they'll be effective.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I don't know which sounds better, a local government beholden to the population or the corporate aristocracy, uhm...
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
You're correct. I wasn't really clear when I described the series of events. TDS started their network rollout after they sued Monticello. It was a stall tactic to beat the city to a functional network.
The hubris of TDS is incredible. I think the judge should have gone farther and sanctioned TDS for their action.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Really? When was the last tyme a corporation had it's charter revoked? After 20 year Alaskans are still waiting for Exxon to pay them yet Exxon still exists. Corporations exist far beyond many humans. How many 100 year people do you know? That's how old IBMis. Exxon is almost as old.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The most recent and current example of this is deregulation of power in Texas and California.
I don't know about Texas but when was power deregulated in California? And don't say in the 1990s, what CA did then was not deregulation, some regulations were removed but others were added. One such regulation was that power distribution companies could not raise their prices, but power generators could. Another regulation was that electrical generators could not also transmit the power.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
You left out steps. For instance the first step was not the government announcing plans to lay fiber. The first step was asking TDS to lay the fiber. It was only after TDS refused to lay fiber when the citizens voted to lay the fiber.
The city should have opened the right of way so any business that wanted to use it to deliver broadband could. They should have told TDS they were going to allow other businesses to use it then said "the early bird gets the worms." Watch the prices drop when there's real competition.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
draft me into the army to die in Iraq,
Neither can city government. Or state government.
No you're right, and I too am tired of the hyperbole. However Massachusetts has something almost as bad. Due to a shortage in Mitt Romney's government-run healthcare, they are starting to ration care, turning-away people are considered too old. i.e. No better than the insurance companies... may, worse than them (you can say "no" and not buy insurance).
And Romney's a Republican. What I rarely ever hear, as when Ron Paul was on Larry King's show (which he occasionally is), is allowing insurance companies to sell health insurance across state lines. The one power the feds have they aren't using. I see commercials saying how some states only have a couple of choices as to who provides insurance but instead of saying policy issuers should be able to sell across state lines they say a public option is needed.
Not only that but they don't say anything about giving people who buy insurance on their own the same tax breaks as employers who offer insurance.
Where we, you and I, disagree is in who owns the infrastructure. I have absolutely no problem with the local, say city, government owning the infrastructure if there is a monopoly. But I would require them to have open access, and let businesses compeat with each other for the services the infrastructure can deliver. Comcast can use the same stuff as ATT and Mom and Pop ISP. Local not federal governments.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
We have 17 year olds, here in Australia, who can kill people, and get 2.5-3 years for it, in a youth training centre. The police do their job. The lawyers do theirs. Every other part of the system works; except the judges.
If your judges aren't doing their job, or you don't like how they're doing it either change the laws or fire the judges.
You could also use jury jullification against laws you think are bad. I was called up to show for jury duty twice and both tymes I was hoping I'd be picked to serve on a jury where I could use jury nullification, such as a drug possession or trafficking case.
Unlike most people, I don't have such a big issue with lawyers; because I say to any judge who reads this, that I know where the fault with the system really is. It isn't with them, judges. It's with you.
What are you doing to change the system? If nothing you're part of the problem.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I hate how 'vengeance' has become a dirty word; and yet if you have been the victim of a crime, surely it is a basic human need.
No it isn't a basic human need. Because of an accident, that was not an accident, I survived a Traumatic Brain Injury. I was hit by a moving van while riding my own bike after my classes in college. Witnesses said the driver was weaving all over the road and it was only a matter of tyme before he hit someone. While I wanted him to pay I do not wish the hell that my life became on him. I am not that sadistic.
And what if the person who you took your vengeance on was innocent, should he or she exercise the same vengeance on you? If the person's dead oops, it's too late. All that leads to is might makes right.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
a large percentage of the people in US jails (at least in California) are gang members. They continue operating in the gangs while in jail, and once they get out, they keep doing illegal gang related activities. Gangs haven't penetrated Canada and Australia the same way they have here.
And what are the gangs for? A lot is for controlling drugs. Making drugs legal will reduce their violence and crime activities. Rational people would think politicians would have learned this lesson from Prohibition, which made organized crime powerful.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
they're coming back into style because gas taxes are effectively at a maximum
Fuel taxes are not even close to a maximum in the US. Cross into Canada and fill up your gas tank, you'll pay a lot more in taxes. And no you can't say that's because gas in Canada is expensive. Canada is the biggest exporter of oil to the US, Mexico is the number 2 provider of oil. Fact is is the US has low fuel taxes compared to other countries.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
That is a point worth keeping in mind, but it doesn't explain why the US has more gang problems than other countries.
Qxe4
As of right now, and for the last couple decades, proven reserves have risen faster than consumption.
Citation needed.
>>Because nuclear is unsafe and produces waste that is also dangerous.
Bullshit. Pure and simple.
No, simply this is pure bullshit.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
That is a point worth keeping in mind, but it doesn't explain why the US has more gang problems than other countries.
Could that be because it is a big melting pot? What other nation has as many different ethnic groups? Don't ethnic groups who feel isolated form their own groups?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I suggest you look at what happened at the beginning of the industrial age before government intervention.
Like what?
If you prefer more recent examples, look at what removing restriction from the financial system did.
What restrictions? Like the restrictions on redlining neighborhoods with bad credit histories, thus making it easier for those who could not pay their mortgages to get one? Like Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac guaranteeing loans for those who could not pay them back? Fact is is the financial system was not deregulated, it had more regulations added.
Quite simply governments pressured mortgage originators to make loans to those who could not afford them.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Why should a group of "concerned citizens" be able to block development on someone else's property? If there were an accident or a meltdown, or whatever other problem might come about from it, let the aggrieved party sue the daylights out of them. That is the free market feedback mechanism preventing harm to people.
Do you also support the removal of the subsidies nuclear power gets? Nuclear Power is Hooked on Subsidies. Wall Street would not fund nuclear power without subsides. Notice how at the bottom of the Forbes article, hosted on a free markets institutes's servers, it says:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Now if you had said that about offshore wind farms, like the one Ted Kennedy opposed, I'd agree.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
At least public roads are directly funded by those who use them (drivers). If you don't drive, then you don't pay the "use fee" collected at the pumps.
No, drivers don't pay all the costs of roads, tax payers pay. The fuel tax collected from gas does not cover the costs of roads so money from the general fund, which everyone pays who pays income tax pays into, is used. Fuel tax would have to be much higher for it to pay all cost of roads, constructions and maintenance.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Right, the rest is covered by use taxes on commercial trucks and shipping services. Just like they would be under a free market. Individuals would be able to use the road for little or no cost, perhaps a hundred dollar a year pass (which they would save in gas).
Wrong, fuel tax, taxes on commercial trucks, and shipping services does not fully cover the costs of roads. Here's a page from the Oregon state government: Road User Fee Task Force. In it they propose using a mileage fee to cover the cost of the roads. From Popular Mechanics, Should the US Tax Mileage or Fuel?: Guest Analysis. Heck some of the so called stimulus money is going to roads. A few miles from me a road is being repaired and there are signs all along it saying the work is being supported by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, notice how core investments are being made in roads
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Most people here in the USA are bred to be against public transportation. They think it's "icky" and they see them belching black smoke so it's "dirty"...
It is icky or dirty. At least those buses I've ridden in the US. I hated riding buses here but when I rode buses in Germany they weren't bad.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Asking the rail users to completely fund rail use doesn't work, and the road users benefit from less traffic.
You don't want to fund rail, don't use rail. I drive but the tax I pay for fuel does not cover the costs of the roads and I am willing to pay more. Just don't take money I pay to lower someone else's transportation costs.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Yes. Then I want cuts in other taxes. If instead of getting a gas guzzling SUV I get a fuel sipping hybrid I should be able to spend the money I save on something else, or invest it. No, actually I'd rather pay a user fee for how many miles I drive. Though my hybrid sips fuel it still causes wear and tear on the roads. Because I don't drive much I still wouldn't pay much.
Falcon
BTW I don't have a hybrid
Should there be a Law?
Your precept that only those who drive benefit from roads is both short sighted and incorrect.
And your precept that only drivers pay for roads is both shortsighted and incorrect. Workers A and B do similar types of work, but A travels 30 miles to work whereas B walks across the street. Worker A will demand more, which drives up the cost of the product he makes, so B pays more. Not having A's travel expenses B still has to pay fuel taxes, because what she wants to buy still uses the roads as does A.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
So the benefit of the road is greater than the simply the ability to drive on them. Therefore, those who benefit, even indirectly, should help to pay for them.
They do, or can, by higher prices and higher property tax.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Not to mention that *bikers* use roads all the time, and I'm sure the four or five of you out there who are bicycle riders will agree that better roads make for better biking.
Better drivers make for better biking. There's little that is as dangerous for bikers on the roads as bad or inattentive drivers.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
etc
How do you feel about cutting corporate welfare? Do you support cutting corporate welfare as well or only cutting support for those who need it?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The problem with the welfare system is that there isn't enough oversight taking place
No, the problem with welfare is that it is set up to keep those on welfare dependent.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Or at least require a certain amount of work (even a token) in order to receive benefits.
It's not so much as requiring those on welfare to work as welfare is set up to keep those on welfare dependent. If you're on welfare and you get a job you risk losing the aid you're receiving. By working you can have less money than not working. Welfare should be a hand up not a hand out. Allow people to work without losing the assistance they're getting until they can stand on their own.
Years ago I worker full time at a job that only paid a little more than minimum wages and my employer didn't offer health insurance. So I looked to buy some myself and the cheapest I found cost more than 1/3 of my monthly pay. Someone told me I should check with the county where I lived for medical assistance and they told me I made too much to qualify. One of the workers there said that if I quit I'd qualify. So I could work and pay my expenses except health care, or I could quit and have health care but not be able to support myself.
My situation is even worse now.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The fact that otherwise stand-up countries have failed in countries like Bolivia seems to me more an indictment of Bolivian politics and society than the companies themselves.
Stand-up countries? Do you mean stand-up companies? Like say Bechtel, who was building a chemical plant for Saddam after Saddam was caught gassing Kurds?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I think you're getting a tad too literal there. Perhaps the statement would be better phrases as: "If you don't use the roads . . ." Although, I don't pay a specific "bike-tax", so I guess there are exceptions.
But you pay property tax. Yes, even if you rent and don't own you still pay property tax, that's part of the owner's expenses.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
in the case of this telco issue, the people organized to put in their own fiber network (a public project is not necessarily a government project) and the government instead of promoting competition though fair trade stopped the people for building the product they wanted. In this case that is not a free market, that is a government regulated market hampering progress.
No, in this case it was a business that delayed the city in laying fiber. Voters approved of a plant to lay fiber after the city asked a company to lay the fiber but refused. The company wanted to sit on it's fat ass doing nothing until voters decided to do what they asked the company to do.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The far right is messed up with their trying to shove religion down everyones throat and the far left is messed up trying to protect everyone from themselves.
Only it's not just the left that tries to protect everyone from themselves. The right shares in that. Before he got busted doctor shopping Rush Limbaugh wanted to throw drug users in jail and throw away the keys. He and others on the right don't support what a woman does with her own body either.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Sorry, yes I meant companies. I hadn't heard of this story about Bechtel here is the article I found on it. After reading it, I would still put Bechtel in the category of good operators. They made a proper deal and were looking to carry it out properly. Absolutely they were operating with a morally bankrupt regime. But they were going to fulfill their end of the bargain, and I don't think that makes them complicit in the unrelated actions of their employer in any way.
There are a lot of unsavory places in the world. American companies continue to do business there regardless, and I don't see why Bechtel doing business in Iraq should be differentiated from all the many businesses operating in China or Saudi Arabia or the former USSR. Those authoritarian states are likely killing at least as many people as Saddam did Kurds, but they never developed as political opportunities for American politicians to make hay by taking the moral high ground, like Saddam's Iraq did, along with a few others like Cuba and Syria. The "moral justice" meted out by the US federal government is very unevenly distributed, and it seems unfair to vilify Bechtel for finding itself on the wrong side of that often arbitrary distribution with millions of dollars on the line.
But really this is a story you can spin however you like. The loans likely required that the money be spent on a reputable engineering company, of which the country (being a backwards shithole) had none. The big construction companies they do have were likely impossibly ineffective stooges in the government's pocket. If I were handing over a huge wad of money for, say, an improved sewage system, I would feel much more confident that the job was going to get done if it was entrusted to an international company with a track record than some local yahoos that helped get the country's infrastructure in the situation it's in in the first place.
I also think it's unfair to portray the IMF and World Bank as groups out to take advantage of third world countries. Those institutions exist to help those places. They have had a "tough love" attitude in many cases, and they have been advocates of privatization of many government industries as well as balancing government budgets by raising taxes, but only because they ultimately believed these things were better for those countries. Are they wrong? Many people think so. But if you believe so and you're president of some third world country, you obviously have the option of not taking a loan from the IMF. There lies the rub, of course, these countries are usually so sketchy that they can't borrow money from private sources at anything near a reasonable rate. Unfortunately, in international development finance as well as life, beggars can't be choosers.
I would still put Bechtel in the category of good operators.
Making excuses? The wiki article contained more unsavory dealings of Bechtel. Such as the Ok Tedi Mine Bechtel constructed in Papua New Guinea which polluted a river. Or supporting a war lord in the Congo, where a lot of people have been driven off their land if not killed to mine for the minerals Bechtel wanted. There were massive cost overruns in Boston's Big Dig project. When the ceiling in a part of the tunnel Bechtel was responsible for collapsed it killed someone.
The "moral justice" meted out by the US federal government is very unevenly distributed
Oh I agree. No trade with or travel to Cuba? But trade with and travel to China and the Soviet Union was legal, both of which were far worse? I was stationed in Germany while in the US Army in 1982. On the post, base, American Express had an ad for travel to Russia. How ironic is that?
it seems unfair to vilify Bechtel for finding itself on the wrong side of that often arbitrary distribution with millions of dollars on the line.
Arbitrary? Perhaps Saddam's gassing was arbitrary but it wasn't arbitrary to have dealings with him. The one thing that could be said in Bechtel's defense was that at that tyme Reagan and his administration supported Saddam, there was nothing Saddam could that was bad, but that does not excuse Bechtel's complicity.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
so my viewpoint is skewed.
I find that ironic. It's the states that grant corporations their charters, not the federal government. Maryland is a favorite state to headquarters corporation because it's friendly to corporations.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
A rarity indeed! Excellent post.
I almost always try to back up my position by providing links. Here's one from Saturday with the same links.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Personally I'm agnostic, "a" without and "gnostic" knowledge, I am without knowledge. Or belief. I seek knowledge though and am willing to look at any spiritual or religious evidence. Otherwise I try not to do harm to others and say live and let live.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
it is not the duty of the Christian to convert,
Do you recall the saying, joke, about Mormons and others who go door to door spreading the "Word of God"? It goes something like this, I don't recall what it goes exactly. When a person answers the door when the evangelical knocks the evangelical says they're there to spread the word of God. The person then asks what is the word of God and the evangelical says that God exists and those who heard but do not believe go to hell. The person who answered the door then tells the evangelical "you've just sentenced me to hell."
Personally I can't understand how, if there is a Supreme Deity, it can require faith. And that those without faith go to some "hell" to suffer for eternity. It reminds me of Keanu Reeves' Constantine. If you haven't seen it I don't want to spoil it but Reeves' character knows of the existence of God and angels. He grew up seeing them, but thinking he's imagining what he sees his parents put him in therapy which includes electroshock before he commits suicide. When he'd dead he comes to know what he sees is real, then he's revived. Afterwards he goes through life knowing that because he committed murder and he doesn't have faith he's going to hell. Why have faith when you know the truth?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Why? You already pay for the gas in your car.
Hypothetically, if you had an electric car, so your fuel wasn't taxed, it'd essentially be like paying the same tax in a different form, so (as long as the rates are set correctly) you wouldn't be paying more than you currently are.
In some areas where there is lots of congestion, it would be a good solution to reduce the congestion. You may wish to argue that it is better for the roads to be funded from other taxes, but remember the comment you replied to was a solution to the problem of people avoiding tax by switching from gas powered cars to electric.
It is not mis-guided. Most people are short-sighted when it comes to assessing up-front costs against long term benefit. Consequently if people had to pay directly for the roads, the roads would end up not being paid for because people don't realise the benefit to them. Additionally, if businesses had to pay for roads it would increase costs for new businesses which might need the roads but not be able to afford to pay for them until they become profitable, this would reduce the number of new businesses and consequently reduce competition.