Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When we first moved here from Calif. the kids had racks in their trucks and guns loaded. Ready for hunting, right after school. Since the Columbine shooting they have all been removed. Now they all must go home and get their rifles and then take off.
I live in central Idaho, unfortunately, we are seeing the Fish and Game close more and more of our forest roads.
We have played on State Land for 15 years. It's just a 1/4 mile out of our backyard. My husband and a buddy where up just fooling around in there Jeeps, when they were approached by forest officials, with guns, that told them they were on private property, since when did State Land become private property.
Well, state land is governed different than federal land. For the most part federal land is open for play, but access can be denied in particular circumstances.
The same goes with state lands, but they tend to be leased out much more than federal land, which is probably what you ran into. Could be timber-leased land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandpointian
Jarndyce,
A VERY astute observation.
The question before us is: as we grow in size and affluence, will we be able to maintain our sense of liberty and freedom? I hope so. The trick is not to let government become complacent. I believe that government must be disproportionately restrained as we get bigger and wealthier. Why? Because the temptation will be to grow services beyond essential and towards an intrusive, social engineering.
I am reminded of tax discussions. As I wrote earlier, "...One thing that does raise an eyebrow is that tax-wise, the state is not terribly committed to a more liberty oriented philosophy but has show up as a low tax state on account of our lower structure of income. Perhaps it is time for Idaho to look toward New Hampshire and enshrine its freedoms on a more institutional basis so that it can remain a beacon for freedom-loving Americans."
Liberty is not the lack of progressive policy. Rather liberty is the active promotion and manifestation of freedom & responsibility.
We need an active freedom and an engaged freedom. Should we fail to commit or demonstrate our zeal in practical and pragmatic terms, we should expect no exemption from the same tempting fates that has befallen those in Washington and California. Besides, I would rather be over protective of freedom than to fall asleep on the job and abandon this state to death by self-inflicted socialism. This way, my kids get a taste of what I had as a kid--no self-imposed limitations on what life can offer.
S
I see socialism has replaced terrorism (which itself had replaced communism) as the new scare word of the era. Who might our generation's McCarthy be?
Well, state land is governed different than federal land. For the most part federal land is open for play, but access can be denied in particular circumstances.
The same goes with state lands, but they tend to be leased out much more than federal land, which is probably what you ran into. Could be timber-leased land.
I see socialism has replaced terrorism (which itself had replaced communism) as the new scare word of the era. Who might our generation's McCarthy be?
Socialism is far more insidious than terrorism. Terrorism is overt and comes from some place in the heart which is unequivocal. Socialism is like Chinese water torture, drop by drop. It is born of complacency. Of the politically naive notion that we need not have trade-offs in life. Of the politically corrrect notion that we need to take tough stands form time to time to protect our value system, the that is often more admired abroad than at home.
Or rather, how about different people place different values on ideas that may be more conducive to a socialist setting? It's not about there being a categorical right and wrong in this - some prefer the values and ideas given priority in X style of government, others prefer the values and ideas in Y.
I think largely that people misunderstand socialism and turn it into a fear-inducing concept. It becomes a negative label and catch-all for any government action they detest. Larger government does not necessarily imply socialism. Nor is socialism necessarily bad or impractical - in it's various guises, take a look at Vermont, some of the Scandinavian nations, and some South American nations that enjoy great benefits from having styles of government that lean more towards what would be called socialism (though not purely being socialism).
I just get annoyed that people act that Americans do and should have the same priority of values, and some of the obfuscation and confusion that goes on with understanding how and why our own government works the way it does.
people misunderstand socialism and turn it into a fear-inducing concept
>> That is true on both counts. I don;t think socialism per se should strike fear in the hearts of people. However, I do fear the cost imposed by moving decision-making into the hands of the state. Having lived in six countries (from neo-fascist to social autocracies of different stripes) and having parents who lived under fascism, imperialism, colonialism and communism (yes, all four), I do not think the average American has the slightest clue as to what freedom is and what is sacrificed when freedoms are eroded a little at a time.
It becomes a negative label and catch-all for any government action they detest.
>> I would agree. In fact most political discourse aired in the public is a conversation between tweedle dee and tweedle dumb. The best ammunition for the left is the stuff that comes out of the right, and vice versa.
Larger government does not necessarily imply socialism.
>> On a purely technical level, I agree. But there is a phenomenon called "institutional hysteresis." When an institution designed for one purpose outlives that purpose, it finds ways to stick around, survive, and propagate. Large government begets larger government and increases reasons to justify its existence. For this reason, one must be extra careful when turning over functions to the state...especially if under the guise of emergency measures!
Nor is socialism necessarily bad or impractical
>> Again, I agree. Actually, the equilibrium results from a decentralized economy and the economy where allocation is determined by the social planner can be the same. But the requirements are far more onerous, essentially that they posess the same information set...highly unlikely. Along the same lines, the cure offered by government is often worse than the cold.
Vermont
>> If everyone wants the same lifestyle, then it can work
>> However, Vermont is very much a strange bird. There are of course two Vermonts. One population consists of the old agricultural Vermont with deep Yankee roots. This population is being slowed priced out. The second population comes from New York City transplants, most of whom made their fortune on Wall Street, that bastion of capitalism.
>> Therein lies the irony in America Those most likely to sing the praises of socialism have themselves created their fortune from the very system they publically criticize. An irony born of hypocrisy, born of arrogance.
>> I would not offer Vermont as an example, since it is not a self-sustaining way of life.
Scandinavia. Let's look at two countries, Sweden and Norway.
Sweden is a small country with a population of 9 million (the US is well over 300 million--the difference is nontrivial from the perspective of developing the underlying economic structure). Sweden is a high tax country. 55% top bracket and one in which you reach the top bracket very quickly. The high taxes give you the following: good govt schools, "free" university education, cradle to grave health care, and a comprehensive welfare state. To get the full benefits of that welfare system, one must commitment to a full life in Sweden.
Here is where things get difficult. Young Swedes do not face the greatest employment prospects. In addition, the Swedish welfare state requires large increases of immigrants from countries that are quite a curious mix (African and Arab). The combination does not suggest that all is well with the Swedish welfare state. What I find interesting is that while the naive waifs produced by American colleges have droned on endlessly about Sweden as the third model, the debate within Sweden is on trying to interject more dynamism and market forces. While I have all the confidence in my Swedish friends, it is the sustainability of the model that is a cause for worry.
Norway. Even smaller population. About 4.6 million. Owns rich North Sea fishing grounds and the North Sea oil. Like a number of Arab oil state, Norway suffers from the Dutch disease problem. Oil revenue disincentivises industrialization. I love Norway. Absolutely stunning women. Fond memories. Great people. A dream of mine is to spend a summer cruising the fjords. But as an economic model? Not really an argument to be made…the beneficiaries of great reserves of wealth…like the Saudis…
Latin America. You of course must be joking. No offense, but I must now assume you are fairly young. Otherwise, you would not dare to offer Latin America as a working alternative to market-based capitalism...
Argentina has been an economic and political disaster since the 1950s when it was a rich country. It has since vacillated between military dictators (Remember the Falklands War…the Mothers of the Disappeared) and populist demagogues (Peron and the Peronistas). While it has never lost its unique brand of arrogance, its macroeconomic management has been consistently incompetent. Great wine and beef. Great for a stint. Smart and wealthy Argentinians hold their money in foreign banks.
Venezuela, Bolivia, & Ecuador. Los tres amigos. Lots of hot air came from the region when oil was at $150 a barrel. Now at <$50 a barrel, they are already preparing to renegotiate their loans. Each of these countries is marked by low ratings on the human development index, high crime, widespread poverty, and government incompetence. These countries were sysmatically robbed of their wealth by the relationships between previous governments and exploitation capitalists. Not great examples.
Brazil: is incredibly well endowed with natural resources, but has been a joke in all areas of macro management. Now, Lula has been a dramatic improvement. Ironically, while he was a well known populist and leftist throughout his career, his success and staying power has been a result of his move to the center. However, the country has the most number in extreme poverty in the Americas. Not the greatest example.
Mexico. An unqualified disaster. If the US were to annex Baja and Nuevo Leon, where the dynamic city of Monterrey resides, the country would fall into a vortex. When I was a kid, it was 8 pesos to US$1. The exchange is now 14,560p to $US1. Mexico City is plagued with horrific pollution, corruption and kidnapping. One more than one occasion, major drug rings have busted high ranking police officers, even the Chief of Police. Remittances from the US are the third largest export behind oil and outsourcing via maquiladoras. The problems there are very deep. I am saddened as this is the country of my mother’s birth. It is a beautiful country, with a beautiful people and rich culture & history. But the country has been decimated by socialism which has driven the profits of the people into few hands.
Chile. Here is the highest rated economy in Latin America. It is dynamic and with more market features that anywhere in Latin America. It boasts one of the great universities, Catholic University. Rates highly on the HDI. Great wine, chocolate, and natural beauty. Yet my Chilean students worry about the socialist bent…no doubt the inertial pull from the rest of South America.
The 21 century is Latin America’s last best chance. With the rise of China and India, Latin America will fall further and further behind…
I just get annoyed that people act that Americans do and should have the same priority of values,
>> I think many Americans really have no clue as to the values they themselves have, much less share. Those that do are precious resources to our country. People need to read the Constitution, a document that does not dictate values, but instead embodies a core set of shared values. Beyond these we should be free.
>> This said, we share more than people know. And if we just read the Constitution more often, then perhaps we would be more apt to respect the system of governance they we ourselves created.
and some of the obfuscation and confusion that goes on with understanding how and why our own government works the way it does.
>> As government grows in size and scope, it is incumbent upon the people to keep up with their understanding of civics.
I'll close with my annoyances. Who annoys me? Most foreigners who attack the United States without any understanding of the US beyond media hyperbole. The thinking of lemmings. Also I am not particularly piqued about those Americans who are filled with self-loathing and guilt over being American. These folks ought to turn in their passports for the countries of their wet dreams. Both types know next to nothing about the world and zero about the creation of our institutions.
America is the first modern democracy in the world and remains the benchmarking model for the Western and Eastern worlds. Rather than have shame, I am darn proud of what we have built and continue to build. My vision for America is born out of due diligence, perspective, and pride, not ignorance or demagoguery. I just wish others would join me more often...
S
Last edited by Sandpointian; 03-15-2009 at 12:12 PM..
Good explanations. I agree with some, and have opinions about some others.
I would want to reply, but I fear that Sage would either move the thread or delete the posts, and I would hope that if we cease the discussion now and move back on topic, the last few posts could hang around, as they are very well stated.
Thank you.
(And I wish I were still young and free of cynicism... )
Idaho analogy: It is easy to love everything about an idyllic spot in Idaho if one brings a couple of million and then lives he bohemian life off of that money. While I would not begrudge such an existence (if fact I would like that!), it is another matter altogether to have public policy based on the bohemian lifestyle without recognizing that those funds are generated from elsewhere!
Idaho analogy: It is easy to love everything about an idyllic spot in Idaho if one brings a couple of million and then lives he bohemian life off of that money. While I would not begrudge such an existence (if fact I would like that!), it is another matter altogether to have public policy based on the bohemian lifestyle without recognizing that those funds are generated from elsewhere!
True.
But at the same time, it's hard to appreciate a government that moonlights and cheerleads for certain economic and industrial activities that a) encourage more and more residents to build a larger tax base, which demands b) more business and industry that come to Idaho to develop, harvest, exploit, consume, and pollute Idaho and its various resources, which at the same time c) places an increasing demand on Idaho's resources, in term of economic dependency, impact, recreational demand and use, etc.
Given this cycle, it's not hard to see why California, Oregon, Washington, and Colorado are increasigly regulated, and why Idaho, Montana, and Utah are following right in line.
We don't need to encourage businesses to come to Idaho, exploit the resources and workforce, and leave when a better opportunity comes along. We need to orient our communities so that they are sustainable and self-dependent.
But at the same time, it's hard to appreciate a government that moonlights and cheerleads for certain economic and industrial activities that a) encourage more and more residents to build a larger tax base, which demands b) more business and industry that come to Idaho to develop, harvest, exploit, consume, and pollute Idaho and its various resources, which at the same time c) places an increasing demand on Idaho's resources, in term of economic dependency, impact, recreational demand and use, etc....
We don't need to encourage businesses to come to Idaho, exploit the resources and workforce, and leave when a better opportunity comes along.
Boise!! I wish it were otherwise, but it is called economics and economic development. I really wish we could live as yeoman farmers, but even Jefferson would have failed Econ 101.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boisefan88
We need to orient our communities so that they are sustainable and self-dependent.
Be careful not to emulate North Korea! There are market mechanisms with which to promote low impact, environmentally friendly economic growth. But usually these efforts are in conjunction with an overall strategy.
I would like to see slowed-down version of smart growth as our default and one that promotes a "branding" of Idaho that can upgrade the lives of all Idahoans.
Well, my point is sorta that if we are going to grow - economically, industrially, and in population - we should expect and in fact appreciate a larger government and increased regulations (laws, codes, etc.).
You want "freedom," you want smaller government - you almost necessarily have to be anti-growth.
I simply don't see how it could be any other way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
