Spokane7
65°
August 14, 2011 in Opinion
Smart Bombs: Take America way back
(Saw this question posed at the New York Times website: “Is America ready for more old men?” The life span between men and women is narrowing, so the Times asked some experts about the ramifications. I fear it will mean more rants like this):
Have you seen this cockamamie idea for phasing out good old-fashioned light bulbs? It was even signed by President Bush. Jeebus! Just when you think you know someone. Those bulbs were good enough for Tommy Edison, a true AMERICAN!!! patriot, but not good enough for the so-called progressives who want to “SAVE THE PLANET.” What have they invented – aside from the bottomless glass of whine?!
This got me to thinking about all of the choices we’ve been robbed of in my lifetime. If the tea party is going to take back America, we gotta go way back, because the FOUNDING FATHERS wouldn’t recognize this joint. So let’s all hop into freedom’s Wayback Machine.
We used to able to choose whether to get car insurance or not. Now the government tells me I GOTTA BUY IT or I can’t drive. Jeep has a model named Liberty. Hello, IRONY!
Remember when we could roll down the car windows and toss out our trash? Try that now and a police officer will write you a big, fat ticket. And if you toss that on the ground, he’ll write you another one. Trust me. Sure, you can call your congressman and complain, just make sure you pull over first.
The freedom to “litter” has been lost, and Uncle Sam swiped it without firing a single shot. Why? Because the liberal media bleats and the “sheeple” dutifully follow. Same deal with seat belts and bicycle helmets. THE TYRANNY NEVER ENDS!!! It won’t be long before they start charging people for ripping up the roads with studded tires. Mark my words. That freedom will be lost.
You saw what happened when we dumped raw sewage into rivers. Now we have to “treat” it, like it was a mental patient or something.
All of this “progress” makes me pine for the days when you could choose a car without a catalytic converter. Now they’re required to cut down on “smog.” Same brainiacs who thought of that also took away my choice of leaded gas. They say that lead was bad for our brains. I’ve seen no evidence of this. Now, I gotta pump that unleaded swill and wrestle with those “low emission” sleeve thingies they mandated for all the pumps.
Last time I checked, this was a FREE COUNTRY!!!! But obviously I haven’t checked in a very long time.
I get so enraged when I think of all the freedoms we’ve lost that I gotta light up a Marlboro. But, of course, I gotta go outside first. Wouldn’t want to “bother” anyone with my smoke. That is, if you can afford a pack of cigarettes, what with all the taxes they put on them. They say it’s to get people to stop. That should be a choice between me and my oncologist. That is, of course, if you can find one who takes Medicare. Why can’t we go back to the good-old days when “seasoned citizens” got to pay their own bills? Now the government is BUTTING IN on my prescription purchases, too.
Did you see where that judge in Oregon says the feds need to give serious thought to tearing down OUR dams to rescue salmon? Leave our dams ALONE!!!! If people want salmon, they can go to the supermarket.
All of this nanny nation nonsense makes me want to head into the woods and live off the grid, but the government now tells you when you can start a fire and when you can’t. Plus, if want to shoot an animal for food, you have to buy a license. Heck, we’re lucky we still have guns. It’s all a part of the “SISSIFICATION OF AMERICA!!!”
Now the “newspaper” tells me this is too long to run as a letter to the editor. Hello, CENSORSHIP!!!! What happened to the days when newspapers weren’t afraid to report the truth? What happened to the FIRST AMENDMENT?
Wake UP, people! Forward this message to everyone on your email list, and if you’d like to help a good old-fashioned AMERICAN entrepreneur, just click on the YouTube link to view our household cleaning products. Remember, 5 percent discount for our brave veterans.
But HURRY!!! Before the government takes away the Internet, too!
Smart Bombs is written by Associate Editor Gary Crooks and appears Sundays on the Opinion page. Crooks can be reached at garyc@spokesman.com or at (509) 459-5026.
Smart Bombs: Greatest generation? Not us 
Orphan on August 14 at 8:11 a.m.
Gary that was pretty poor, not funny, not insightfull, not inspiring, not even a decent lampoon just very poor journalisim. What were you thinking?
Gary D Rhodes on August 14 at 8:21 a.m.
Forget the tea party.
There is no such organization. No leader and no platform.
Substitute libertarianism in it’s place, then we could have a rational debate. Libertarians share a realization that the fiscal condition of the country is on an unsustainable trajectory.
But beyond the economy, and the failed Keynesian philosophy, there is much more nuance and reasoning.
Unfortunately, Mr. Crooks would rather perpetuate inaccuracies and fan the flames of hate and divide, rather than digest the actual aims and philosophy of this third-way.
To start with, as Mr. Crooks has been told many times, GW Bush is as far from libertarian as Clinton or Obama.
Also, libertarians believe in absolute freedom, AS LONG AS WHAT THEY ARE DOING HARMS NO ONE ELSE OR THEIR PROPERTY.
Putting toxins into the air, or dumping trash on the public ground, or polluting the water HARMS OTHERS.
It is sad that Mr. Crooks can’t help the SR readers understand this third way, rather than trying to perpetuate the highly inaccurate conventional wisdom.
Too bad Mr. Crooks doesn’t blog with the SR readers any more. He might just develop some understanding of what people with other than liberal leanings might actually think. Eventually.
gmorton on August 14 at 8:32 a.m.
R\hodetrip write,
“It is sad that Mr. Crooks can’t help the SR readers understand this third way, rather than trying to perpetuate the highly inaccurate conventional wisdom.”
Gary, like most lefties, knows he cannot rebut the actual libertarian thesis. So they must concoct parodies to attack.
soccermomsusie on August 14 at 9:09 a.m.
Finally. Crooks is coming over to OUR SIDE!!!! YES! This is where we Conservatives want to take our country back to!
My Liberal nephew showed me an article regarding Standard and Poors rated countries. You want to know what all the triple A rated countries have in common? THEY ARE ALL SOCIALIST NATIONS! YUCK!!! Better that we have a C- rating than stick with that bunch.
Somalia is looking better and better. I hope Alderwood Manor opens up a retirement home there soon. I might consider the move.
What’s the difference between these kooky libertarians and us real Conservatives? Libertarians admit to wanting drugs legalized and don’t hide their actual sexual orientation. YUCK AGAIN!!!
HEAR OUR VOICE!!!!
gmorton on August 14 at 9:59 a.m.
An interesting (though non-scientific) online poll re: the Iowa debate:
Paul 24984
Gingrich 5852
Cain 3165
Bachmann 2423
Romney 2370
Santorum 1032
Huntsman 421
Pawlenty 332
Votes as of 07:14 AM, 08/14/11
http://www.topix.com/issue/fox/gop-debate-aug11
Diana on August 14 at 12:28 p.m.
Gary Crooks, pay no attention to the humorless and irony-impaired.
Personally, I like reading the drug-addled musings of Russian novelist, Ayn Rand. Wasn’t she collecting Social Security when she died?
I wonder why the recent movie, Atlas Shrugged, bombed.
Diana on August 14 at 1:02 p.m.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, is Lord of the Rings. -Paul Krugman
In today’s world, “Goin’ Gault” means sucking as much from the federal system as you can, while trying to deny anyone else’s ability to do so.
gmorton on August 14 at 1:11 p.m.
Diana wrote,
“Wasn’t she collecting Social Security when she died?”
I would hope so, assuming she paid into it. She should have collected what she and her employers contributed plus interest calculated at the rate of growth of the stock market from the time her contributions began.
Diana on August 14 at 1:31 p.m.
Thanks, GMorton. Somehow I thought she would turn down a government entitlement program, as Libertarians are prepared to do.
meadman on August 14 at 4:04 p.m.
Great sarcasm! !! Thank you Gary
gmorton on August 14 at 4:12 p.m.
Diana wrote,
“Somehow I thought she would turn down a government entitlement program, as Libertarians are prepared to do.”
It’s being an “entitlement program” is not what matters. That merely indicates a program which does not require annual appropriations. What matters is whether it is a free lunch, i.e., a benefit for which you have not paid, or a payment for which you’ve rendered no service nor delivered any product to the government.
Smokie on August 14 at 5:08 p.m.
Ayn Rand may have collected social security, but it was her cashing in on MediCare to pay for her cancer operations that was one of her funniest hypocrisies. She exercised her God-given liberties to chainsmoke cigarettes and we all (the collective) paid for it. Big surprise.
Typical Republican. AntiGay Gays. AntiSocialist Socialists, AntiRegulation Regulators.
A freak show.
Gary D Rhodes on August 14 at 5:18 p.m.
Right. Just like those crazy libertarians enjoy using roads they pay for with gas taxes, license fees and other taxes.
I think I’ll just not use the roads anymore, I’ll just cut across people’s yards.
garyc on August 15 at 9:51 a.m.
Nobody pays full freight for Medicare, especially if cancer is involved. Not even close. She definitely got benefits for which she did not pay.
I’m sure Ms. Rand sent a thank you note.
Gary D Rhodes on August 15 at 10:20 a.m.
Gary, If you buy an insurance policy and then you collect for a covered expense, isn’t that the way it works.
American’s are forced to buy into this insurance policy. If the government has miscalculated the risk and potential payouts, that is not the fault or responsibility of the policy holder.
That’s why insurance companies use actuaries.
Jeffrey_Grey on August 15 at 10:28 a.m.
In Spokane, roads are paid for and maintained in part through property taxes. My mom no longer drives, but she still owns property and pays taxes - part of which goes toward maintaining our city’s streets.
Therefore, anyone who drives on our city’s streets is getting a ‘free lunch’ from my mom. Since doctrine is as black and white as it is sacred to him, I’m sure my mom will be getting a reimbursement from rhodes any day now, yes?
I’m also sure that we’ll be putting up a toll booth at all the city’s access points so as to recoup the value of the ‘free lunch’ all non-property-owning drivers receive courtesy of the city’s tax paying land owners.
Last but not least, I’m sure our resident libertarian savants have no end of abstract, amorphous dogma and doctrine that can be applied to rationalize this away (once the question is appropriately ‘defined’ to suit said answer.)
Gary D Rhodes on August 15 at 10:58 a.m.
Grey, I’ll send you mom a thank-you note. What is her address?
gmorton on August 15 at 11:27 a.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
“In Spokane, roads are paid for and maintained in part through property taxes.”
Actually, they are built and paid for, in most cases, by the property owner who developed the plat. They are donated to the City when that plat is annexed, on the condition that the City maintain them thereafter. They are usually improved (paved, etc.) by the property owners abutting the street, via an LID.
“Therefore, anyone who drives on our city’s streets is getting a ‘free lunch’ from my mom.”
That’s incorrect. City streets provide benefits to many classes of users besides drivers. They provide your mom access to her property via a public right of way, so that the Postal Service can deliver her mail and UPS her packages. They allow her to walk or bicycle or skateboard to the park or 7-11 down the street. They provide a right of way buses, taxicabs, and your car, if she travels by those modes.
And of course, you’ll pay for the streets whether you own property or not, since those taxes will be covered in your rent, if you are a renter.
gmorton on August 15 at 11:38 a.m.
garyc wrote,
“Nobody pays full freight for Medicare, especially if cancer is involved. Not even close. She definitely got benefits for which she did not pay.”
Not so. What she paid for is an insurance policy, which, like all other insurance policies, provides benefits if certain things happen, but not otherwise. That is the nature of insurance – most of the benefits go to a small fraction of the policy holders. As long as she paid the premiums required, and the total of premiums covered the costs for all policy holders, she was entitled to the benefits promised.
Now of course, Medicare subscribers today do not pay the full costs of the coverage they get. They pay only about 60%. I’m not sure whether that was true in 1974.
garyc on August 15 at 12:28 p.m.
I’m sure she paid the premiums she wished had never existed (she had to), and in return ran up bills that were higher than others in this government group insurance plan.
In any event, why are you Garys bringing up Libertarians? Never mentioned them.
Jeffrey_Grey on August 15 at 12:42 p.m.
Right-o, gmorton. There are no bond issues or levies. Those things are just as non-existent as the communities who support them. How silly of me to refer to something that your dogma says can’t exist.
To coin a phrase; non sequitur! They provide the exact same benefits to everyone living in the (non-existent - at least according to you) community. But many of those community members also drive on the streets, something my mom no longer does. So all those community members are deriving more benefit with no proportionally greater contribution.
And what about all the non-residents who derive benefit from our streets? Especially those who are just passing through and return nothing to Spokane’s expenses?
Isn’t all of that what you have called a ‘free lunch’ in the past? (At least when it didn’t directly benefit gmorton.)
It’s exactly the same with respect to Medicare / Medicaid, for example. We all contribute proportionally the same. But just as with the streets we use, some of us will obtain greater benefit.
The only difference between those two examples is that gmorton wants to have streets he can use, so it’s okay for everyone to contribute toward their construction and upkeep.
But unless and until he needs Medicare or Medicaid… Well, no fair expecting him to contribute to someone elses’ free lunch!!
Jeffrey_Grey on August 15 at 12:45 p.m.
rhodes,
You reply was up to your usual standards of cogency and substance. Exactly what I was expecting from you.
Gary D Rhodes on August 15 at 12:47 p.m.
Because the tea party is an idea, a state-of-mind, and thus different for individuals and therefore not definable.
The one issue everyone agrees with is the size and scope of the federal government is out of phase with what is sustainable, and is wrecking the American economy. Therefore in agreement with libertarianism in that aspect.
BTW, good to hear from you, Gary.
MatthewRoot on August 15 at 12:52 p.m.
The existence of a Tea Party Caucus in Congress seems to reify that state of mind
MatthewRoot on August 15 at 12:55 p.m.
Jeffrey, your posts remind me of this billboard (see links below) erected on I-95. I find it a bit funny that it is on an Interstate Hwy built by the collective to enhance transportation and commerce for all. It is also near the Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base in St. Marys, GA, which provides a major economic boost to the area and the company that erected the sign, in particular.
http://www.theusreport.com/the-us-report/i-95-john-galt-billboard-mystery-solved.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SdJh-y72bY
Gary D Rhodes on August 15 at 1:18 p.m.
Matthew, no libertarian is against roads.
We are not for anarchy.
We are certainly against taking money from one person to give it to another.
Gary D Rhodes on August 15 at 1:31 p.m.
Here you go, Gary.
“Four years ago, Paul sought the GOP nomination while talking about economic policy, liberty and the Federal Reserve. Since then, the tea party has risen and seized on those issues, and some regard Paul as one of the movement’s godfathers.”
http://news.yahoo.com/once-fringe-candidate-paul-shaping-2012-race-205132862.html
Jeffrey_Grey on August 15 at 1:57 p.m.
Matt,
Odd coincidence; I was stationed part-time in King’s Bay for two years. (This was at the time when submarine crews were still based in Charleston, S.C. but the boats were then operating out of the ‘new’ base in King’s Bay.)
garyc on August 15 at 5:01 p.m.
Then I look forward to Mr. Paul’s announcement that he is leaving the GOP to ride this substantial wave to victory.
Then again, only a slight sliver of folks think it should be the size he wants.
Better stay put as a pretend Republican.
Gary D Rhodes on August 15 at 6:10 p.m.
Rather he and a couple of dozen others are GOPers are trying to take the party back to its roots following the Constitution.
Just think how much money we have spent with our interventionist foreign policy and perpetual wars.
Including September 11th, which was blow-back.
Then there is the crashing dollar, inflation, thousands of people in prison for victimless crimes……
gmorton on August 15 at 6:51 p.m.
garyc wrote,
“In any event, why are you Garys bringing up Libertarians? Never mentioned them.”
No, but you referred to them by innuendo.
gmorton on August 15 at 7:06 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
“Those things are just as non-existent as the communities who support them.”
Egads, still trying to peddle that distortion, eh? Give it up, Jeffrey. Everyone here can read.
“To coin a phrase; non sequitur! They provide the exact same benefits to everyone living in the (non-existent - at least according to you) community. But many of those community members also drive on the streets, something my mom no longer does. So all those community members are deriving more benefit with no proportionally greater contribution.”
And many of those who drive do not walk, bicycle, or ride the bus as often as your mom may. There is no basis for your claim that drivers are deriving *more” benefit. The only basis for such a claim would be a pricing scheme based on miles traveled, by any mode, which in the case of city streets would be far too cumbersome to assess and collect. So pricing is based on the size or street frontage of the property served instead.
You’re grasping at straws, Jeffrey. Silly ones at that.
gmorton on August 15 at 7:14 p.m.
MatthewRoor wrote,
“I find it a bit funny that it is on an Interstate Hwy built by the collective to enhance transportation and commerce for all.”
“Collective”? What “collective” would that be?
Modern societies are not collectives, Matthew. Those exist only in Hutterite communities, Israeli kibbutzes, and the archaic lefty imagination. The interstate system was built by the government. It was paid for by users of that system, through fuel taxes.
gmorton on August 15 at 7:21 p.m.
Rhodetrip wrote,
“Four years ago, Paul sought the GOP nomination while talking about economic policy, liberty and the Federal Reserve. Since then, the tea party has risen and seized on those issues, and some regard Paul as one of the movement’s godfathers.”
Thanks for link, Rhodes. That was an AP story. I don’t recall seeing it carried in the S-R. Apparently, like most of the MSM, it is trying its best to ignore Paul.
Jeffrey_Grey on August 15 at 8:19 p.m.
I’m grasping at straws??
My mother contributes for a service she does not use - driving a car on the streets her tax dollars help to subsidize. Streets that other people do drive cars upon. Therefore she pays for a specific benefit - driving a car - that other people profit from but she does not. That you can do other things with streets is irrelevant. I point to a specific benefit she pays for but does not receive, yet others do. In the past, that has been your classic definition of a ‘free lunch’ - one that in this case, you (assuming you drive a car on Spokane streets) seem to have no trouble eating.
And by the way; my mom doesn’t walk, bicycle or ride the bus. So there are several more specific benefits others get that she does not.
And what about all the non-property-owning and thus no-property-based-tax-contributing users of our city’s streets?
Jeffrey_Grey on August 15 at 8:28 p.m.
“The interstate system was built by the government.”
How did that government come into being? From whom does it derive its power? And if the answer is; ‘the individual voter’, then that means that the Interstate highway system was built only by those people I - a voter living here in WA in the 50’s -personally voted for.
Remember the words, gmorton? “We, the People…” “…a government of the people, by the people, for the people…”
‘People’; plural, not ‘Person’; singular.
And what do you call it when ‘people’ work together to promote their common social, economic and political goals?
The Merriam-Webster dictonary calls that a ‘community.’
gmorton on August 15 at 8:55 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
“Therefore she pays for a specific benefit - driving a car - that other people profit from but she does not.”
Oh, stop, Jeffrey. No one is paying for any specific benefit for anyone else, or even for themselves. She is no more paying for the benefits drivers receive than the benefit her neighbor receives when he walks his dog. She is paying for the benefit *she* receives by not having to pay tolls to cross others’ private property to leave her own, or in order for others to visit her or make deliveries to her. She’s paying for access to the outside world from her property via a public right-of-way. How often and in what fashion she chooses to use that access is up to her.
You can’t allocate costs for city street according to actual use; that is economically infeasible. That is one of the defining characteristics of a public good.
Once you get that silly cap on, it wants to stick like glue.
“And what about all the non-property-owning and thus no-property-based-tax-contributing users of our city’s streets?”
I’ve already answered that. If they’re paying rent, they are also paying the property taxes.
gmorton on August 15 at 8:57 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
“And what do you call it when ‘people’ work together to promote their common social, economic and political goals?
“The Merriam-Webster dictonary calls that a ‘community.’”
Correct. Your point is … ?
Jeffrey_Grey on August 16 at 5:43 a.m.
‘Oh, please stop’, yourself. It’s happened again. We’ve moved from the abstract where you can get away with spouting your theory and your nebulous terms and it all sounds plausible provided you don’t stop and think it through - to the specific where it becomes clear just how hollow all that theory and dogma is.
The dreaded ‘gummit’ holds a gun to Entity A’s head and forces her to contribute proportionally as much as Entity B to something that Entity B derives significantly more benefit from than Entity A.
‘Free lunch! Free lunch! Evil gummint!!’
Except when it’s something that gmorton can derive some benefit from. Then all of a sudden we get new terms. ‘It’s not a free lunch! Oh my no! It’s a public good! And public goods are something that moral agents can freely partake of.’
BULL.
No? Your cherished dogma and doctrine don’t produce that kind of patently hypocritical result?
What am I speaking of in my hypothetical example above? Am I speaking of streets or un-reimbursed medical care or any of the hundred-and-one ‘free lunches’ that don’t immediately provide benefit to you?
And don’t you dare try to redefine the hypothetical by adding or altering the terms. Answer the question asked as it has been asked. Either that, or expose your rhetorical smoke and mirrors trickery for everyone who ‘can read’ to see.
gmorton on August 16 at 8:25 a.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
“The dreaded ‘gummit’ holds a gun to Entity A’s head and forces her to contribute proportionally as much as Entity B to something that Entity B derives significantly more benefit from than Entity A.”
Jeffrey, you are not reading the comments you’re attempting to refute.
You have no basis for claiming that one person receives “more benefit” from a street than another. To do that you would have to identify all the different benefits different people realize by having access to a public street, assign market-determined values to them, then compare them. Until you do, your claim is baseless and gratuitous.
As I mentioned above, one straightforward way to price use of a roadway is to charge per mile traveled. That is how toll roads work. That is not feasible for city streets, however, since streets provide benefits other than their own travel upon them to persons with access, and because streets, being true public goods, are *non-excludable*.
But of course I realize that the concept of public goods is one you choose not to acknowledge, and regard as “gobbledygook.”
“Am I speaking of streets or un-reimbursed medical care or any of the hundred-and-one ‘free lunches’ that don’t immediately provide benefit to you?”
Ah, yes. You believe you can use streets as a proxy for medical care, and derive conclusions concerning the latter from premises concerning the former. Well, you can’t, because streets are a public good and medical care is not.
But of course, before you can perceive that logical gap, you’ll have to learn the difference between public and private goods. Which means you’ll have to ditch the petulance, pull your head out of the sand, and educate yourself.
gmorton on August 16 at 8:34 a.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
“Then all of a sudden we get new terms. ‘It’s not a free lunch! Oh my no! It’s a public good!”
Heh. Hardly a new term. The term “public goods” has been defined in every elementary econ textbook for the last 50 years or so.
Jeffrey_Grey on August 16 at 10:23 a.m.
I knew you couldn’t do it. I knew you couldn’t answer the question as asked. I knew you’d have to lift the specific - where your answer doesn’t fit - to the abstract - where you can start tossing out your gobbledygook ‘it means what I say it means and all right-thinking people recognize that!’ evasions until it sounds good enough to fool some of the people some of the time.
Is driving a car down the street a benefit? It’s a simple yes or no question. If no, then why do we have streets? If yes - which it is - and Entity A pays to maintain the streets but doesn’t drive on them, but Entity B does - B is deriving a benefit at A’s expense. I don’t have to put a dollars and cents value on that. To try to make that part of the question is you pulling your standard ploy of trying to redefine the terms of the question so you can then either evade it or torture it into fitting your answer.
Not does it matter what other uses a road can be put to, other than to just make the original point even further. Or it does, provided you don’t fall for your distraction of trying to turn a simple, concrete ‘yes’/’no’ into a vague generality. Look, if Entity A also doesn’t ride the bus or go for walks or ride a bicycle, but Entities C, D and E do all of those thing, that only mean that A is paying for even more benefits without receiving them. It doesn’t mean that somehow the benefits become unquantifiable and therefore the whole question is meaningless. (‘Meaningless’ in this case obviously being; ‘Wow - I can’t come up with a rebuttal for the simple question so it’s time to obfuscate!’) I don’t have to quantify the value of the benefit. It is sufficient for my proof to prove the disparity, no matter what the specific value of it is. If A pays but gets ‘not as much’ and B, C, D and E get ‘more than A’, that’s what you have heretofore so stridently condemned as a ‘free lunch.’ It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about using city streets or getting treatment in the emergency room. It doesn’t matter that you arbitrarily solve the issue by applying a different label to what is fundamentally the same outcome and so try to define the problem away.
That’s mostly true because your ploy of labeling is nothing more than an empty, rhetorical trick. It’s becoming more and more obvious that ‘public goods’ - as YOU use the term - means ‘those things that gmorton likes and wants because they benefit him so everyone else can pay for them.’ Whereas ‘free lunches’ are those things that don’t immediately benefit gmorton so why should he have to bear his share of the load.
The proof is the above. Streets are a public good. Medical care isn’t. Why? Well, because that’s how gmorton defines the term public good. Yeah, I know… I’m very backward and unenlightened because I won’t fall for your ‘define the question to fit the answer’ ploy.
I have pulled my head out of the sand gmorton. I have educated myself. As a result I can see just how much of a fraud you are. And now I’m showing others.
gmorton on August 16 at 10:40 a.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
“I knew you couldn’t do it. I knew you couldn’t answer the question as asked.”
You didn’t ask any question, other than the question about non-property owners, which I answered (twice). You instead made a claim, namely, that some persons derive “more” benefits from streets than others. But all you managed to show is that different people derive different benefits (which is obvious).
“The proof is the above. Streets are a public good. Medical care isn’t. Why? Well, because that’s how gmorton defines the term public good.”
No, Jeffrey. Not how Morton defines it. It is how all economists define it. You can ignore the distinction between public and private goods if you wish, but the differences do not thereby disappear. Here is (again) one statement of those definitions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
You could ignore the difference between a tiger and house cat too, if you wished. But you’d flunk your zoology final.
gmorton on August 16 at 10:57 a.m.
Jeffrey,
I have to admit that your strategy for justifying free lunches is novel, not to mention bold.
You are attempting to refute the claim that governments must provide certain goods (public goods) because due to certain characteristics of that class of goods they cannot be provided privately, but ought not provide private goods, by denying that there is any distinction between public and private goods.
That is quite an audacious move. It would mean a whole lot of textbooks would have to be re-written.
Jeffrey_Grey on August 16 at 3:53 p.m.
So, we’re to the point where you twist the question and then rephrase the answers, lecture me on my refusal to accept your empty rhetoric and dogma that comprise those answers, and try to evade and confuse by generally arguing the argument.
You’re trying to obfuscate the issue by drawing an irrelevant distinction between the fact of the disparity and the quantity or nature of that disparity. ‘A’ pays for a service that provides more benefit to ‘B’ than to ‘A’. ‘How much’… ‘What kind…’ That doesn’t really matter. When it suits your dogma, this situation would find you whining about free lunches. But when it’s something you want or you approve of, then it’s ‘a public good.’ Or at least, you slap that ‘defined as needed’ definition upon it.
Well… I’ve shown the fraud. Let others see the truth of this or not.
gmorton on August 16 at 4:13 p.m.
“‘A’ pays for a service that provides more benefit to ‘B’ than to ‘A’. ‘How much’… ‘What kind…’ That doesn’t really matter.”
Oh, but it does. Until you have identified the various benefits and determined their market values, you are in no position to claim that A receives “more” benefits than B. You are also in no position to price the good for various users – at least, not on the basis of extent and nature of use. That’s why pricing is based on size, frontage, or value of property serviced instead.
That doing the former is infeasible is what makes streets a public good.
MatthewRoot on August 16 at 6:55 p.m.
Definition. Collective (1) : denoting a number of persons or things considered as one group or whole.
As in American society, or the government making a collective decision to build a National Highway.
Pretty simple, really; but spin, redefine, and dissemble all you like, morton. I am done here.
gmorton on August 16 at 7:39 p.m.
MatthewRoot wrote,
“Definition. Collective (1) : denoting a number of persons or things considered as one group or whole.”
That’s one of the defs of the adjective. You need to check the noun def, since that’s the form you were using.
Government decisions are collective decisions only insofar as a majority in Congress is a collective. Society as a whole is not one.
sh5646 on August 22 at 6:34 p.m.
Gotta say: just got back into town and have been catching up on my “Good Ole Papers”……All the comments regarding this editorial, which I thought was of national caliber, remind me that “It’s the Stupid, Stupid.”