• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Measure of Freedom

hrlysef

Banned
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
48
Location
Maple Valley, Washington, USA
Just saw this report and saw that it hits a lot of our buttons.

From the study:

"Our approach to measuring freedom in the states is unique in three respects: (1) it includes measures of social and personal freedoms such as peaceable citizens’ rights to educate their own children, to own and carry firearms, and to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; (2) it incorporates more than 150 distinct public policies; and (3) it is particularly careful to measure fiscal policies in a way that reflects the true cost of government to the citizen. "

Open carry is specifically mentioned in the paternalism category. "...while 26 states allow anyone to wear a handgun openly on the hip without a permit of any kind....

http://mercatus.org/publication/freedom-50-states-index-personal-and-economic-freedom

Washington ranks down near the bottom of the overall category.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Washington is still among the 10 least-free states.

Even though gun laws are among the best Washington State has other ways to keep us under their thumb.

Taxes and fees are among them along with regulations on Alcohol, Tobacco, and Gambling.

As for Taxes, just remember that for the average person, they had to work from January 1 to April 12 just to pay their tax burden for 2011. Over 25% of the year, just to support the Local, State, and Federal Taxes.

I judge my freedom also on the basis of the ability to keep a large percentage of the income resulting from my efforts. The trend of Government playing "Robin Hood" with my money, taxing me heavily to support their own waste and those who refuse to work tends to undermine not just my freedom, but the freedom of everyone else that works hard rather than going through life as a freeloader.
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
Interesting read... but one thing I keep seeing irks me. On their "Recommendations" they keep suggesting cutting transportation and transit expenditure, when this is perhaps one of the few legitimate uses of gov't funds...
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
Interesting read... but one thing I keep seeing irks me. On their "Recommendations" they keep suggesting cutting transportation and transit expenditure, when this is perhaps one of the few legitimate uses of gov't funds...

How are 'transit expenditure(s)' a legitimate use of government funds? (State government only)
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
How are 'transit expenditure(s)' a legitimate use of government funds? (State government only)


Because transit is an extension of the road system (transportation), which is both a traditional role of government and constitutionally authorized. And in a purely practical sense, it reduces govt dependency by allowing those to get to work who actually want to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
Because transit is an extension of the road system (transportation), which is both a traditional role of government and constitutionally authorized. And in a purely practical sense, it reduces govt dependency by allowing those to get to work who actually want to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How is transit an "extension" of the road system? That is a bit of a stretch. Generally transit costs do not reduce government dependency but increase it. They may increase independence among a small group of people (disabled) but not enough to justify the overall costs. To be honest, it may be more cost efficient to just give really small inexpensive cars to the poor instead of spreading transit costs among the general population.

'Reducing" dependency on government would have the end goal of eliminating the cost. Providing 'free and reduced' transit does neither.

Furthermore, transportation is NOT a traditional role nor constitutionally authorized function of government. Again, please separate the Federal Constitution and the legitimate role of state government. Post Roads are authorized in the Constitution, yet the Federal government builds very little 'post roads'. That argument no longer has relevancy. Therefore the Constitutional argument is eliminated.

As to the state level, the people of the state and/or local government can decide that roads or transportation (public) are a legitimate use of government. I will support the notion that providing the infrastructure(roads) is necessary from a government stance as it benefits all people at some level. However, the math does not work when dealing with bus, rail, etc.

Ben Franklin....

"I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
...stuff...


Yeah, yeah, man. I'm not bringing this thread any further off topic. *I* believe that transportation is both a necessary and legitimate role of government in a society of a given size. If you don't, then we'll just have to agree to disagree since neither is going to change the others' mind on this, nor the current role of such.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
Interesting read... but one thing I keep seeing irks me. On their "Recommendations" they keep suggesting cutting transportation and transit expenditure, when this is perhaps one of the few legitimate uses of gov't funds...

Public transit is so heavily subsidized that it really does not make sense to continue. See how long public transit would last if they charged enough to break even.

If a private business could not make it the goverment should not be doing it either.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
Yeah, yeah, man. I'm not bringing this thread any further off topic. *I* believe that transportation is both a necessary and legitimate role of government in a society of a given size. If you don't, then we'll just have to agree to disagree since neither is going to change the others' mind on this, nor the current role of such.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How is it off topic? The thread is off topic (except for the small part about gun laws to the respective states).

I understand what you believe, but you provide no cite's to show that "transportation" is a legitimate role of government. It is not, it is not in the Federal Constitution and it is not in our state constitution. If buses (subsidized) are a legitimate role then why not air transportation?

Infrastructure (roads, bridges, airports) are a legitimate use of government. Transportation (buses, light rail) are not. That being said, could they be a legitimate use of government funds? Yes. Densely populated cities (San Fransico, NY, et al) But that is decidedly a local government issue, not federal and depending on the nature of the project, not state government. (i.e. look at the cable cars in SF, they were originally paid for by the city government...no state funds, no federal funds)
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
I never said that transit was a legitimate FEDERAL role (and neither do I think it is). I was attempting to make a parallel between the constitutional authorization for federal post roads(the modern iteration of which is the interstate) and state and local roads (intRAstate). You won't be getting any cites from me today, I have short spurts of time to try typing this stuff on an iPhone and didn't expect an aside comment to turn into an official OCDO multipage off topic rant war :p besides, the basis of my opinion here is based on 10 years of personal experience in the industry which is hardly citable.

You acknowledged yourself the need for public transit in a large society. Now perhaps in an ideal world it could be entirely locally funded, but I don't see that happening in this day and age. From my own experience, I think a county-based or regional approach would work best, but given the ease with which one can travel an entire state today I don't think state funding is entirely illegitimate either. I actually agreed with most of what you had to say in your last post.

Orphan: the roads are "heavily subsidized" as well, and private industry has failed to provide those too, should we scrap the road system as well?

Transit is a logical extension of the road system once a society reaches a certain size. Podunk, IA, pop 300 doesn't need a transit system, it barely needs a road system, heck it could function with little to no government at all. Megalopolis, USA, pop 8 million is another matter. A society of that size simply could not function without transit, the population is way too dense, neither could it function without roads. Or government.

The larger and more complex a society is, the more (local) govt it requires in order to function.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
On the transportation issue, I find it interesting that in Countries where transportation falls under the "Federal" government and is relatively free of local control, it works great. How many here that are griping about our transportation system have ever lived in a Foreign Country.

I lived in Europe for a couple of years and could travel the entire country by train for a reasonable sum of money. Get on a train in Frankfurt and step off in Amsterdam in a matter of hours. The trains ran on time and were frequent. Train stations were transit hubs. From main lines to local lines to streetcars.

Here the poor attempt we have made involves a "Private Corporation" and it takes forever to get anywhere, assuming there is even a train that goes that way.

The thing Europe has going for it is that it was essentially bombed flat in the 40's and when they rebuilt, transportation was considered primary. Here it's merely a political football.

Yes, it is a responsibility of Government as no individual, or group of individuals can provide what's needed.

It will become more evident as energy prices go up and we won't all be able to own or operate individual vehicles. Of course when that time comes we'll all realize how badly we screwed up when the "rails were torn up".
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
Hardly wise to go comparing anything financial to Europe considering they're even more broke than we are, and are increasingly looking at how WE do things now.

Then there's the fact that we have some individual states that are nearly the size of europe...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Hardly wise to go comparing anything financial to Europe considering they're even more broke than we are, and are increasingly looking at how WE do things now.

Then there's the fact that we have some individual states that are nearly the size of europe...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But they also have existed for far longer than this Country. You must have missed the recent news reports where Europe is increasingly saying "we don't care how you do it in the US".
 

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
With respect to the transit system I think it is valid to compare us to Germany (I wouldn't put the Belgian rail system in the same class as the BundesBahn)....

I love the way the Bundesbahn works in Germany. Yes, it is subsidized, but it works. And with gas in the 1970s being $5.00 a gallon or so in Ffm, you damn betcha I took the train instead of using a car. I did drive a lot my first tour, but the second one was mostly rail traffic...it is much cheaper.

If the US had a rail system like that (we did, at one time) it would be wonderful. But people want to have their own cars....so the rail system dwindled and died. Yakima had a street car system once, as did Seattle, Spokane and Tacoma....where are they now? All paved over for cars.
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
Back in the late 1800's early 1900's there was this little train that ran from Portland, OR to Vancouver, BC...It was called the "interurban" and it did just fine until the motor bus came along. It was a private RR. After the motor vehicle came along, and the roads were improved, bus lines serviced the purpose...just like the "misquito fleet" serviced the water traffic on the sound before Washington State ferry system came along.

If there was a demand, some private company would service the demand. Why can these small operations no longer compete? Because the State subsidizes all of the "public" transportation with your tax money, if you use the service, or not.

That is what freedom is all about. You choose live and to spend the money you worked for in the manner you want to. You do not have the state take it from you and spend it the way they want to.

For example: Why are my fuel taxes taken by the state to pave bicycle lanes in Seattle? I will never benifit from those bycycle lanes, ever. If the bicycle people want bicycle lanes, tax the bicycle people not those that use other forms of transportation, or better yet, let them put the lanes in themselves.

Maybe I should cry because I have to drive on 5 miles of gravel before I even get to any pavement? Anyway, WA has a lot of restrictions on what you can do that do not exist in other states. They spend a lot of public money on things that only benifit a few, and they control/tax everything they possible can (as long as it benifits their political agenda) Consider our Gov and the Indian gaming tax that didn't happen (the Native gaming people lined her coffers, the lack of a gaming tax is payback)
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
Here I go playing for the other side, but did you ever think that americas love of cars is intrinsically linked to our (unique in the world) love of liberty? I'll be the first to admit it, public transit is an inherent limitation on personal liberty. You can only go where THEY want, when THEY want, with THEIR routing. That's why liberals and other statists love and advocate (to the point of force) public transit. It's control. Perhaps it's cliche, but the car IS freedom. Go where YOU want, when YOU want, with whom YOU want, on the route YOU want. Anywhere there's a road. And with some vehicles you don't even need the ROAD (liberals hate these "cars" most of all, go figure).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
Stupid tapatAlk...

Public transit in a large, dense population are is a necessity, just like the roads themselves. Yes, it's a limitation on liberty, but so is that apartment building the city dweller must live in. The trade off to living in a dense population center with all it's conveniences is greater restrictions on your own liberty.

Now somewhere in the middle there's gotta be common ground as far as equitably and constitutionally funding a regional TRANSPORTATION system that meets the needs of bus riders, car drivers, and yes even the obnoxious fruits on bicycles, from the fArm to downtown, that also respects everyones's liberty.

Based on my own experience, I simply don't see how a private company can efficiently and SAFELY provide public transit. Perhaps in some libertarian perfect world, but not in the here & now.

As I'm fond of saying, if we'd quit wasting money on illegitimate liberAl social programs and other unconstitutional BS , there'd be plenty of funding available for legitimate ones like transportation & transit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Top