Conservatives? (Boston, Chelmsford, Holden: buy, high school, inspection)

[holden125]

Originally Posted by Mike313

I believe in individual rights, not societal rights.

So, when you ask me about public transportation, I ask if it is something that violates any of my individual rights? Well, if it's taxpayer-funded, it violates my right to keep what I earn as money is taken from me in the form of public-transportation taxes. Then, I ask, do I derive any benefit from this expenditure? Well, if I'm not the one riding, then I receive no benefit. Do I benefit if someone else is riding? Again, I receive no benefit. So, I vote no on taxpayer-funded public transportation. And, I have to say, if I derive no benefit from someone else riding on my dime, I have to question how this service might benefit society as a whole.

You do not have a "right" to keep what you "earn." Most of what any of us "earn" is only made possible because we live in a complex society with enough widespread wealth to generate demand for the products, physical or service, that are generated and sold to produce our income. That society is a dues-paying club. You cannot begin to guess what your income would be outside the context of a society with sufficient infrastructure (physical, educational, and legal) to make everything possible.

Your public transit example demonstrates the narrow-mindedness of an overly individualistic way of thinking. Boston, like many large metropolitan areas, has a large number of people in a small area. Try to imagine the traffic that would result if there were no MBTA. This would cost Boston-area drivers an enormous amount of time and money. Even those who don't ever use the MBTA should thank their lucky stars it exists. So do you benefit if someone else is riding the T? Yes, you do. Not to mention the environmental benefit to society (though I suppose that downside to car culture just doesn't exist).

Moreover, you should consider that the roads you drive on were not created by God on the sixth day of Earth's existence. Every last one of them is publicly built and maintained, at a cost to taxpayers significantly higher than public spending on the MBTA. I have always been a city dweller and bought my first car three months ago at the age of 33. Every time you have driven a car in your life, on those public roads, you have been riding on my "dime." There's a better argument that such car dependence provides no societal benefit than there is that the MBTA provides no societal benefit. I do not begrudge that spending, however, because just as there's not enough room on the roads for everyone in the area, right now there's not enough room on the T either. Though one of my fondest hopes is that the T will be expanded significantly in the decades to come.

There was a time when things were run the way you suggest: about 1880. I, for one, don't wish to go back to that time.

[twilliams_ca]

Originally Posted by Mike313

Hmm. And, I thought it was you who said you were confused. Go back and read your own post.

Did you?

Originally Posted by Mike313

That's very nice.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Mike313

What exactly is it that doesn't directly affect me, is bad for society, and I made a response to?

Well let go back to you point about public where you said that if asked you would say that because you don't personally ran it you find it has no benefit to you. However, I would indirectly benefit to you, because takes cars off the road, so you can go to work faster, or the environment is cleaner and quieter.

Originally Posted by Mike313

Where's your proof that I've said that?

Nothing you directly said, just that you where suggesting that once we allow socialism, we should just get it over with and rise the soviet union flag.

Originally Posted by Mike313

So, you're telling me I'm a socialist? I can't wait to tell my capitalist friends who have been treating me like I'm an anti-collectivist!

Hate to be a nitpicker, but true capitalism, can and has found it place in most politically climates including monarchy and socialism. Ever China is experimenting with it in a communist environment.

But, my point with this statement is if you find little or no legitimate purpose for the government, that might be considered Libertarianism (check link to read up about it), but even ideas, like public agencies for public safety can also be thought of as socialist ideas as well.

Originally Posted by Mike313

You miss the point. The book is essentially about the battle between individual and collective rights.

Are you suggesting that the only opinions we as humans can come up with is "Every man for himself" and "We are the Borg! Resistance is futile!"? That we as humans are not smart enough to discover and handle something in between?

[meltinjohn]

Originally Posted by DreamworksSKG

Progressive Socialism is not the same as Russian Socialism.

We just want to make it so that the richest part of the country pays the most in taxes, and the middle class doesn't get screwed which we do now.
we believe that the government should have some control over things....not total control but some control and should regulate some aspects of government.

Its not the same as the socialism of russia.

It is Progressive Socialism

That said there are conservatives in Massachusetts

and while I'm not one of them if you do research online
you can find conservative groups

--jeff---

Im a Mass person who grew up in the burbs but carries the Boston accent but I do not at all like progressive socialists.
You might as well just go all out and bring the russian socialism/Che Guevara stuff to the table. I actually like some of their ideals better than the progressive liberals because at least they'll agree with you that the government sucks ntm commune living isnt a bad idea if it is done right.
The problem I have with progressives is that they think commune living is for wackos and that communism is such a bad thing but what they do is just a "lighter" sense of communism with the political correct crap they promote each day. I am libertarian minded and Im not afraid if Id get heat for that there.
The best government to me = no government although if you eliminate the US Government, a new one will form in some way so my vote goes to government as limited as can be.

[meltinjohn]

Originally Posted by andavj

Yes, there are a few conservatives sprinkled throughout the state - I'm one of them! It's very frustrating being in the minority though. The liberal government is always doing something that makes no sense at all, like giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses, the right to vote in state elections, and in state tuition.

Count me in. Im moving back to MA but not totally in Bostons viscinity but like a half hr out but yes, I am libertarian minded.

[meltinjohn]

What you're basically telling me is that I voted in November to raise my own taxes so that children, poor people, and old people can have healthcare and basic human support. Well, that's correct and I'd do it again. [/quote]

No, what you did in November is vote to raise taxes on taxpaying Americans in order to funnel more money to the Liberal controlled government so that they can bailout their rich friends, provide sweet heart deals to their rich friends, line their own pockets and tell give the money away to people who never earned -- none of it will be spent on improving healthcare, the lives of poor people (unless you consider $ to buy tattoos and malt liquor an improvement), or children's futures.

PS -- nothing is stopping you from sending all of your money to the IRS, please do. I just want you to take your hand out of my family's pockets.[/quote]


Liberals that change and adjust the sentence to make it look like they are for paying higher taxes themselves, lovely.
And all this socialist society does is make it so your only buying malt liquor or cheaper meals and not being able to go beyond that. I dont mean go all extravagant but jesus christ, make it so you can afford at least a 15 dollar meal if you want it or what not. Why I choose to have anarcho viewpoints.

[meltinjohn]

Originally Posted by dognh

I said that everyone has the same opportunity, but some people just have to work harder. Like I said life isn't fair, some people benefit from powerful friends. that's life. The sooner you get over it, the sooner you'll get ahead yourself.

As far as people with graduate degrees getting laid off. Again, that's life. The economy goes in cycles and people aren't (and shouldn't be) guaranteed jobs for life. In tough times, businesses downsize. I would also argue that it is the government's fault that we are in as tough a spell as we are right now -- if they'd just stay out, we'd recover a lot quicker.

Wow, theres 2 points I validate totally.
Its only common sense that EVERY man is created equally and everyone has the same tools to succeed and its how you use them that makes people indifferent from one another. We are all born equally though.
Tom Selleck is no different from you or me. He just had the connections to make it famous.
The government indeed needs to back out of this situation and let the people bring it back up again. This means no insane seller fees if you sell online and so on..They need to get the hell away so profits can be made the old fashioned way.

[meltinjohn]

Originally Posted by holden125

You do not have a "right" to keep what you "earn." Most of what any of us "earn" is only made possible because we live in a complex society with enough widespread wealth to generate demand for the products, physical or service, that are generated and sold to produce our income. That society is a dues-paying club. You cannot begin to guess what your income would be outside the context of a society with sufficient infrastructure (physical, educational, and legal) to make everything possible.

Your public transit example demonstrates the narrow-mindedness of an overly individualistic way of thinking. Boston, like many large metropolitan areas, has a large number of people in a small area. Try to imagine the traffic that would result if there were no MBTA. This would cost Boston-area drivers an enormous amount of time and money. Even those who don't ever use the MBTA should thank their lucky stars it exists. So do you benefit if someone else is riding the T? Yes, you do. Not to mention the environmental benefit to society (though I suppose that downside to car culture just doesn't exist).

Moreover, you should consider that the roads you drive on were not created by God on the sixth day of Earth's existence. Every last one of them is publicly built and maintained, at a cost to taxpayers significantly higher than public spending on the MBTA. I have always been a city dweller and bought my first car three months ago at the age of 33. Every time you have driven a car in your life, on those public roads, you have been riding on my "dime." There's a better argument that such car dependence provides no societal benefit than there is that the MBTA provides no societal benefit. I do not begrudge that spending, however, because just as there's not enough room on the roads for everyone in the area, right now there's not enough room on the T either. Though one of my fondest hopes is that the T will be expanded significantly in the decades to come.

There was a time when things were run the way you suggest: about 1880. I, for one, don't wish to go back to that time.

I kinda go between you 2 here since I believe public transit is mandatory and Im big on that ****, but at the same time, I feel everyone should keep what they earn.
I dont like this complex society, and altho I don't want it to go back to 1880, I think 1940s and 50s style living is best. People clearly lived better back at that time with limited government and far lesser technological options, but not exactly the outlaw ages like that of 1880.
What were speaking of is 2 extremes. Liberals want a high technological filled world, hardcore libertarians want it to be back to the outlaw ages. I want the 40s-50s world back only with more individuality and being able to be gay or wear long hair. So this does mean "slave" labor without the service based economy like the one we have today. I can step back and look at the situation and truth is that this "slave" labor made it a very functional economy and people were happier living simple while maintaining shelter that they could afford and everyone cooked their own meals with the freshest ingredients. I dont want how it is today at all, but also dont care to see it like the dark ages either.

[dognh]

This "roads" argument is always a bunch of nonsense. If we eliminated everything the government spends money on that it shouldn't/isn't Constitutionally obligated to, then there would be plenty of money for roads.

I do have a problem with anyone who says that I don't have "a right to keep what I earn."

The day the government starts taxing people at 100% is the day that everyone who actually works for a living STOPS - then where will the money come from?

As far as public transit - it should be self-sustaining. If that means fares have to be raised to $50 each way, so be it. It's supply and demand. If nobody wants to ride, why should we still have to pay for it

[jayrandom]

The roads argument is that roads are a resource used by some but paid for by all, just like public transportation. Just as you believe that public transportation should be self-sustaining wouldn't that also necessitate a belief that roads should be self-sustaining and that tolls should be imposed on all roads to pay for their construction and upkeep? If not, why are roads something that society should be obligated to provide but not subway lines? Both require large initial outlays and continuing funding for maintenance and operation. Is it because you use one and not the other?

[dognh]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

The roads argument is that roads are a resource used by some but paid for by all, just like public transportation. Just as you believe that public transportation should be self-sustaining wouldn't that also necessitate a belief that roads should be self-sustaining and that tolls should be imposed on all roads to pay for their construction and upkeep? If not, why are roads something that society should be obligated to provide but not subway lines? Both require large initial outlays and continuing funding for maintenance and operation. Is it because you use one and not the other?

Roads are vital to commerce, transportation and connecting the entire continents - roads are infrastructure and paid for and up-kept by tax dollars - which I don;t have a problem with. (as far as tolls, the MassPike Bonds were paid off in the 80s, so with your argument the tolls should come down)

As far as subways - there is a limited consumer base and have no relevance to 90+% of a state's population. If a city wants a subway, their residents should pay for it.