oh my god you are retarded

why should the federal government auction off its most valuable resource?

4/17/2006 8:56:24 PM

Quote :

"you morphed pursuit of happiness into property. "

Actually Jefferson morphed Adam Smith's phrase.

Quote :

"Also there is no mention of the pursuit of happiness in the Constitution"

Did I say there was? My bad.

Quote :

"When oil is found underground the government should auction the land off."

Great idea .... I nominate L-Snark for Secretary of the Interior!

4/17/2006 9:19:05 PM

how the fuck did this thread end up being about eminent domain and property rights?

Quote :

"Actually Jefferson morphed Adam Smith's phrase. "

It was locke's phrase. And how the hell can you be such an ardent libertarian and not immediately recognize it as locke.

...

But the idea of income redistribution has nothing to do with any of this stuff since taxation is already a power the federal government has and you have to be pretty much an anarchist to think property rights are in question regarding an income tax.

[Edited on April 17, 2006 at 9:45 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on April 17, 2006 at 9:46 PM. Reason : ]

4/17/2006 9:45:34 PM

I don't understand why half of you want the government to have more power. Have you seen the tools we have in office? I don't trust them to do shit without fucking it up.

4/17/2006 10:03:18 PM

Quote :

"It was locke's phrase. "

Sorry to disagree. This is from our friends at Wikipedia...

Quote :

"The phrase is based on the writings of John Locke, who expressed a similar concept of "life, liberty, and estate (or property)". While Locke said that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions", Adam Smith coined the phrase "life liberty and the pursuit of property" although that phrase has often been incorrectly atributed to Locke. "

Quote :

"I don't trust them to do shit without fucking it up."

That is about as succinct a commentary on giving gov't too much power as I've ever seen. This should be stamped on all of our coinage immediately.

4/17/2006 10:54:08 PM

Had they intended the declaration of independence to mean life, liberty and the pursuit of property, they would have written that. But no, they wrote, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Don't come with some weak sauce action that pursuit of happiness means property. That phrase was used by Adam Smith in the same year the constitution was written.

4/17/2006 11:21:01 PM

I like how Earthdogg only used part of that wiki quote to prove me wrong on a semantic point (it is still locke's ideas) because the second part wouldnt work so well for his main argument.

anyway is there any chance this thread goes back on topic?

[Edited on April 17, 2006 at 11:33 PM. Reason : ]

4/17/2006 11:31:58 PM

Quote :

"why should the federal government auction off its most valuable resource?"

Hmm, for money? What is the government going to do with the land? Sit on it? I suppose it could do so as an investment in the future (auction it off later rather than now). Of course, I suppose the national parks weren't created as a speculative investment. I guess you could declare these areas off-limits forever in order to preserve the pristine stuff.

As for the rest of the Federally owned land which is not part of a park, which makes up most of it if I recollect, the government should sell it sooner or later. If the auction is done right (at the right time, etc) then the treasury can pocket nearly all the oils intrinsic value, paying off some of the deficit, etc.

nutsmackr, why do you think it is a bad idea?

4/18/2006 1:31:40 AM

I don't know, lease it, protect it, etc, but not sell it.

I have no problem with the fed leasing the land, so long as we get paid for our natural resources the companies are taking.

I don't like selling federal land because then we have the land being moved more and more into the hands of the few instead of the wholel

[Edited on April 18, 2006 at 1:35 AM. Reason : .]

4/18/2006 1:34:08 AM

Quote :

"is there any chance this thread goes back on topic? "

OK..Sorry bout that. I found an interesting interview Murray gave regarding this plan
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=032806A

Some parts I found interesting:

Quote :

"There is, however, another whole set of effects of the welfare state in the form of Social Security and Medicaid and other kinds of programs which take money from one American and give it to another American (whom the government has decided needs the money more). Whether it's taking it from a young person to give to a retiree, or whether it's taking it from a secretary in Alabama to give to a corporation that is getting a special favor from the government, all of these transfers -- and that's what they are: money from individual Americans to other individuals or to corporations -- seem to me to be a classic example of shipping money to Washington, seeing large amounts of it be wasted and go down the drain, and then it gets shipped out of Washington in much reduced form for dubious purposes. And what "In Our Hands" is all about, ultimately, is saying: stop that. Just, if you're going to collect all this money, give it back to people as money and let them run their lives as they see fit. We cannot blink at the fact that there's so much money out there -- and the impulse to use the government to redistribute is widespread. We are not going to change that. For all time to come, governments are going to take in vast sums of money and redistribute it. And then the question for libertarians becomes: if one accepts that it's going to happen, is there a way to do this which leaves people's lives in their own hands? And that's the source of the title of the book. So there will still be government redistributing a lot of money. The big difference is it's no longer bureaucrats who are going to be doling it out in dribs and drabs under certain conditions if you have demonstrated certain kinds of need. It is going to be giving people sufficient resources to run their own lives."

As much as I do not like redistribution, perhaps this is one of those moderate Libertarian solutions that will help fade our economic cut-throat image a bit. Murray admits that if we're stuck with welfare and social security, let's do it in a way that uses less gov't.

[Edited on April 18, 2006 at 1:42 AM. Reason : .]

4/18/2006 1:41:27 AM

I have a few problems with that idea (SHOCK!!!)
the 10,000 level seems low to me, but the specific number is kind of unimportant, except that he says that his plan would be slightly more expensive for 5 years, then run even then save money, so any change in that number would effect his calculations.

the actual giving of the check is a lot more complicated then it sounds. there would be a ton of mistakes, its a guarantee. thats not to say that the current system is mistake free, its just that the actual implementation of sending 10,000 bucks to everyone requires a lot of information management. i thought libertarians didnt like the idea of the government having everyone's names on file and tracking where they live.

I dont really like the idea of a system that ignores individuals like this would though. The 10,000 amount would be great if I was working a minimum wage job for 40-50 hours a week, it would make life a lot easier. But what if I was 90 years old and couldnt work? Or 30 and physically unable? Do we rely upon charity to provide for those people?

4/18/2006 2:06:21 AM

This is like the fair tax, but even sillier.

4/18/2006 2:22:58 AM

Quote :

"i thought libertarians didnt like the idea of the government having everyone's names on file and tracking where they live."

You're right we don't. But But moderate libs recognize that the gov't knows that information now and that redistribution is an evil we are currently stuck with. So Murray is saying at least do it in a more efficient way.

The question..would this be a good way to replace social security and welfare?

4/18/2006 10:34:49 AM

Quote :

"I don't like selling federal land because then we have the land being moved more and more into the hands of the few instead of the wholel"

Wha? You pointed the problems out yourself, the companies lease the land, rape it, then leave. They have no interest is keeping the land useful or maximizing the societal benefits.

That said, in North America land is more than plentiful, it is down-right worthless in many areas. We have more land than we know what to do with. Quite a bit of Arkansas can be yours just for promising to pay the taxes, yet no one does (over 95% of the state is in government hands).

That said, what good does it do "the whole" to hold this worthless land? The tracts that someone would buy sits there unused and tax free. If some rich guy wants to buy the land and pay the property taxes I say go for it. Maybe he'll make it useful, at the very least he'll pay taxes on it (in most states property taxes make up most of the local tax base).

http://www.nwi.org/Maps/LandChart.html

4/18/2006 1:18:41 PM

Quote :

"The question..would this be a good way to replace social security and welfare?"

no, in addition to other complaints, i think that it would ultimately prove MORE costly than those programs currently are.

4/18/2006 3:57:27 PM

^^The world is not black and white dumbass

you don't allow the companies to rape the land

and you charge them for the resources they take from it.

to you it is always, protect the environment and the economy suffers or fuck the environment yea capitalism.

Besides these leases are anti-capitalism.

more like mercantilism.

4/18/2006 7:56:27 PM

Quote :

"you don't allow the companies to rape the land and you charge them for the resources they take from it."

Yes, cause you know the government has been doing such a great job at this so far.

Quote :

"Besides these leases are anti-capitalism."

No they are not, they are as marketable as anything else. Whatever company makes the highest bid gets the lease. The only difference is that the money isn't going into the treasury, as with my system, but into the pockets of the politicians in the form of campaign contributions.

You can, instead, put the leases up for auction, this would fix the corruption aspect. But you are still left with a company that doesn't give a shit about the land. You say "don't allow the companies to rape the land" but most politicians are willing to look the other way for the right price.

Our society suffers from more than the occasional market failure. We also suffer from accute failures of politics. Therefore, whatever system you choose must take all potential failures into account.

Quote :

"to you it is always, protect the environment and the economy suffers"

Eh, troll.

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 12:08 AM. Reason : .,.]

4/19/2006 12:08:04 AM

well, its the truth.

efficiency and responsibility should be balanced.

4/19/2006 12:41:19 AM