How Ironic, Red States That Would Exist Without Government Free Stuff. (interstate, highway)

[EddieB.Good]

Originally Posted by Hot_Handz

You have no proof that people were not motivated to do so....you are obfuscating. It was the most logical thing to want to expand. Why? Because Americans just broke free from generations of Feudalism and were realizing the prospect of production and trading of goods. Everybody was racing for their piece of prosperity.

The US & settlers were still warring w/ Native American tribes when railroads started span the Midwest. Please tell me that don't think that living alone in a war zone counts as motivation. A big reason that people raced out west was b/c it was practically free land being given away by the gov't. They didn't have to spend years saving to buy it from the private sector.

And you are full of it when you say "Private enterprise had no access to large tracts of land"... They absolutely did. During that time business interests actually dealt with people directly to form an association.. This was the turn of the century were talking about here, there were no corporations to shield prospective entrepreneurs from anti-trust which was an unknown phenomenon at that time. The pros and cons of utility were well presented and civilians were plugged into the daily musings of government and private interests. Federal government didn't start engaging in the takeover of land until the "amazing" and "generous"....

Why do you insist on arguing against FACTS. Private enterprise did not have access to large tracts of land. Anything they did buy, they kept or sold for profit. None of these railroad tycoons bought up land and gave it away at a fraction of the value to normal citizens. That's a fact. So all this nonsense of "deals" between private enterprise and people are marginal cases, at best.

Homestead Act
...which was nothing more than a glorified government land grab.

A land grab by the gov't of land the gov't already owned? Really? Please explain how the "grab" occurs when the land is being "given"

They were....and....they did!

if they couldn't....which James J Hill proved could be done..why did they (federal government) need to engage in protectionism?? You are taking a stance that protectionism was used as a tool to expand railways, roads and canals for the betterment of civilians? But how?

Here is something for you to digest....

MR. JAMES J. HILL'S FOLLY. - View Article - NYTimes.com

Ok, this sums up the ideal of protectionism as sold to the people.. for the best interest of the individual..it's also worth noting that the proposition of tariffs was a "right wing" concept.

Lol... protectionism? What foreign country was the US protecting American industry from? But that ignorance aside... you've found one example in the HISTORY of railroads. What disputed Indian territory did Hill run his trains through? What disincentive did he deal w/ that pushed the gov't to encourage settling of the Northwest? You're comparing someone who didn't have to deal w/ any of the hurdles that early pioneers in railroading did.

The notion that private funded railroads would have expanded with no regard to expenses, by way of supply side theory, is not something that I hold. Simply because that was a bigger incentive for the government, tariffs were being paid on a per mile basis. So, in terms of business sense, it was a no-brainer for government to subsidize what now was a new cash cow, because they could simply use the power of state to collect these tariffs. But we all know government shouldn't be run like a business, right?

About time. Thanks for finally admitting you had no point.

If anything, James J Hill deserves credit for sticking to him guns..Surely, government would have taken under the table money for a break in tariffs...they only take in billions of them today.

So, I have to ask you....if the government cared so much for the "common good"..Then why has the implementation of protectionism made no progress in over 200 years....??

Again, states went bankrupt because of this stuff to the point they amended their charters to ban subsidies for these transportation improvements.

You've already admitted that private enterprise would not have expanded the railroad, or settled the Midwest as fast as the gov't, so whatever redirect you're going to try is moot...

Pick up a brain.

Typical Conservative allergic reaction to facts and history.

They wouldn't have extended at the same pace.....because they didn't HAVE to, like the government led people to believe. They used fear mongering, like the proposition of domestic invasion, as a means to expedite the process.

Lol...

Well maybe you should stay out of Avocados threads...

It's still mind boggling to me how somebody can use the Homestead Act as a boon of how "great and good" our government is...What turned out to be a good thing to come out of the Homestead Act turned out to be a greater good for the future of bureaucracy and corporatism. And you can't claim hindsight being 20/20 on an issue like this because the element of bribery was thousands of years old and not foreign to anybody.

This is EXACTLY the same rationale Lincolnites use when they glorify the abolishment of slavery. Sure, it was a very good thing to see African Americans acknowledged as humans. But it was a byproduct of the Lincoln Administrations coercive tariff collection measures, which failed. And in turn caused the Civil War which freed the slaves....But really, just empowered the Mercantilism of the north....which was at the top of the laundry list.

It was not altruistic....it was self serving.

Sorry, but I'm still wrapping my mind around someone calling the gov't giving away land to regular people a "land grab"...

[Hot_Handz]

Originally Posted by EddieB.Good

The US & settlers were still warring w/ Native American tribes when railroads started span the Midwest. Please tell me that don't think that living alone in a war zone counts as motivation. A big reason that people raced out west was b/c it was practically free land being given away by the gov't. They didn't have to spend years saving to buy it from the private sector.

We wiped out the Indians pretty handily so, no....I think it's pretty irrelevant.

Why do you insist on arguing against FACTS. Private enterprise did not have access to large tracts of land. Anything they did buy, they kept or sold for profit. None of these railroad tycoons bought up land and gave it away at a fraction of the value to normal citizens. That's a fact. So all this nonsense of "deals" between private enterprise and people are marginal cases, at best.

The land that was bought by private interests were done so with the blessings of the people....One thing was understood with the acquisition of land, whether it be public or private, and that was people condoned the building of roads and rails.

A land grab by the gov't of land the gov't already owned? Really? Please explain how the "grab" occurs when the land is being "given"

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

The reality is that the government had already taken the land through taxation from the people. And the question then becomes, what should the government do with all that land that the people have already paid for?

And what was the point of handing the land back? To broaden the revenue base!!!

Eminent domain was intended to provide a private land owner sufficient access to the same resources of another land owner that was in a advantageous geographic location. It wasn't until 1868 that they ratified the 14th amendment to broaden the Federal governments reach and REDUCED the states governing powers.

Is it a coincidence that it happened 6 years after they "handed out" 270 million acres of land? No, it isn't.

Lol... protectionism? What foreign country was the US protecting American industry from? But that ignorance aside... you've found one example in the HISTORY of railroads. What disputed Indian territory did Hill run his trains through? What disincentive did he deal w/ that pushed the gov't to encourage settling of the Northwest? You're comparing someone who didn't have to deal w/ any of the hurdles that early pioneers in railroading did.

America DIDN'T need protection from anybody.....that was my point...but tariffs were being introduced this early as "preventative" measures...they were still protectionist in nature. And, totally unneeded.

About time. Thanks for finally admitting you had no point.

There was DEMAND!

You've already admitted that private enterprise would not have expanded the railroad, or settled the Midwest as fast as the gov't, so whatever redirect you're going to try is moot...

Not as fast as the federal government because government had more incentive. Simple. They would have expanded because the demand for more road and rails wre there and private enterprise was meeting that demand...handily...

Typical Conservative allergic reaction to facts and history.

Hey at least you didn't call me a right winger....because after all, you are subscribing to "right wing ideals" in this very thread.

Sorry, but I'm still wrapping my mind around someone calling the gov't giving away land to regular people a "land grab"...

Because it was. In 1862 they had already acquired the land through coercion!!

What I am still wrapping my head around is that you argued this point as government simply "having land" and totally ignoring the means by which land was acquired at that time.

[Dr. Tesla]

it's democrats, primarly black people, in southern states who get the government handouts. I love how liberals always trot out this talking oint to slam red states but it's not Republicans in red states who are teh free loaders. It's the base of the Democratic party.

[EddieB.Good]

Originally Posted by Hot_Handz

We wiped out the Indians pretty handily so, no....I think it's pretty irrelevant.

So I guess those several Indian Wars we fought, and recurring military excursions into Indian territory during the railroad boom was just the gov't's imagination, eh?

The land that was bought by private interests were done so with the blessings of the people....One thing was understood with the acquisition of land, whether it be public or private, and that was people condoned the building of roads and rails.

"Condoned" has nothing to do w/ anything. The public "condones" more trips to space and the moon. That doesn't mean private enterprise is going to fund it. It, like railroad expansion, isn't happening w/o gov't funding/subsidizing the costs.

And what was the point of handing the land back? To broaden the revenue base!!!

Eminent domain was intended to provide a private land owner sufficient access to the same resources of another land owner that was in a advantageous geographic location. It wasn't until 1868 that they ratified the 14th amendment to broaden the Federal governments reach and REDUCED the states governing powers.

Is it a coincidence that it happened 6 years after they "handed out" 270 million acres of land? No, it isn't.

And? What's your point? The fact remains, that w/o gov't intervention, the Midwest would have remained unsettled for much longer, would have grown at a fraction of the speed, and rail lines would have been mostly unfunded until the Midwest was bustling enough to justify the cost.

America DIDN'T need protection from anybody.....that was my point...but tariffs were being introduced this early as "preventative" measures...they were still protectionist in nature. And, totally unneeded.

So you just threw in talks of tariffs & protectionism for sh!%s & giggles? Got it.

There was DEMAND!

Not as fast as the federal government because government had more incentive. Simple. They would have expanded because the demand for more road and rails wre there and private enterprise was meeting that demand...handily...

Really? There was demand for rail lines to service an uninhabited Midwest, in disputed Indian territory, where citizens were afraid to move b/c of their fear of Indian raids? Really? And who exactly was "demand"ing these lines? The private enterprises that would have lost money building across the Midwest or the non-existent people living there...

Because it was. In 1862 they had already acquired the land through coercion!!

What I am still wrapping my head around is that you argued this point as government simply "having land" and totally ignoring the means by which land was acquired at that time.

Unless you're arguing that the land was coerced from Indians... b/c that's the only people who you could argue "owned" the land before the Fed gov't. I get the feeling that you don't understand what some of the words you use mean. First it's "land grab," then "demand," and now it's "coercion."

[dv1033]

Getting rid of the native population and railroad expansion/settling the west happened at the time

[Hot_Handz]

Originally Posted by EddieB.Good

So I guess those several Indian Wars we fought, and recurring military excursions into Indian territory during the railroad boom was just the gov't's imagination, eh?

No, never said it was...My point was... we slaughtered the Indians hand over fist. So nobody was worried about westward expansion... it's BS.

Are you suggesting that the US Government acted alone in regards to Indian removal in original colonies and the south??

No, they didn't....they were pressured by the settlers!!

"Condoned" has nothing to do w/ anything. The public "condones" more trips to space and the moon. That doesn't mean private enterprise is going to fund it. It, like railroad expansion, isn't happening w/o gov't funding/subsidizing the costs.

The bottom line is there was the demand for rails! Private enterprise was already funding it! Yes, there was only one significant RAIL example where an uninhibited free market was allowed to finish the project. But there were 4,000 miles of private roads established by 1820 that had generated 20+ million dollars of revenue.

You're exercising in conjecture by saying westward expansion wouldn't have came to fruition without subsidies. People invested at that time...by the boatload.

And? What's your point? The fact remains, that w/o gov't intervention, the Midwest would have remained unsettled for much longer, would have grown at a fraction of the speed, and rail lines would have been mostly unfunded until the Midwest was bustling enough to justify the cost.

Conjecture!

So you just threw in talks of tariffs & protectionism for sh!%s & giggles? Got it.

No, I threw it in to show that our government...pretty much since DAY ONE...undermined individual prosperity.

Really? There was demand for rail lines to service an uninhabited Midwest, in disputed Indian territory, where citizens were afraid to move b/c of their fear of Indian raids? Really? And who exactly was "demand" these lines? The private enterprises that would have lost money building across the Midwest or the non-existent people living there...

Back to the Indian removal argument....it was a widely held belief that Indians impeded the path to progress as a nation. Are you disputing that?

Unless you're arguing that the land was coerced from Indians... b/c that's the only people who you could argue "owned" the land before the Fed gov't. I get the feeling that you don't understand what some of the words you use mean. First it's "land grab," then "demand," and now it's "coercion."

Tell me how the Federal Government ended up with all that land.......??

And why.. out of the 1b+ acres of land, only 270 million acres of it was sent back into the private hands? Like it was originally intended....

I guess you never read the Equal Footing Doctrine....

[EddieB.Good]

Originally Posted by Hot_Handz

No, never said it was...My point was... we slaughtered the Indians hand over fist. So nobody was worried about westward expansion... it's BS

Are you suggesting that the US Government acted alone in regards to Indian removal in original colonies and the south??

No, they didn't....they were pressured by the settlers!! .

You don't even see how you've proven yourself wrong. There's a reason why settlers were pressuring the military to take care of the Indians. The settlers were too far apart, too disorganized to do it themselves. That was the same fear of the Indians that prevented people in the East from settling in the Midwest. No one was "worried about westward expansion" but they weren't going to move there until that problem was dealt w/ or they were incentivized enough w/ free land to calm their fears.

The bottom line is there was the demand for rails! Private enterprise was already funding it! Yes, there was only one significant RAIL example where an uninhibited free market was allowed to finish the project. But there were 4,000 miles of private roads established by 1820 that had generated 20+ million dollars of revenue.

Private rails funded by gov't subsidies! Roads are completely different scenario b/c that doesn't require the same level capital investment to build. Trying to compare railways to roads being built privately is like trying to compare the shipping industry to people hollowing out canoes on the weekend.

You're exercising in conjecture by saying westward expansion wouldn't have came to fruition without subsidies. People invested at that time...by the boatload.

It's not conjecture. It's called history. Rails had been in Europe for decades before the American railroad booms, and made dozens of Europeans rich , yet Americans didn't start investing in rails until the gov't stepped in. Explain that. Your ideal "private enterprise" was there for the taking, w/ European rails as the blueprint. If private demand was there, and the Indian menace was not a threat, why didn't American rail lines start popping up until the gov't stepped in?

Conjecture!

Historical fact!

No, I threw it in to show that our government...pretty much since DAY ONE...undermined individual prosperity.

Uh huh... so you didn't have a point.

Back to the Indian removal argument....it was a widely held belief that Indians impeded the path to progress as a nation. Are you disputing that?

No.

Tell me how the Federal Government ended up with all that land.......??

A little thing you might have heard about called the Lousiana purchase was where the bulk of that land came from. Let's see if we can find where the coercion happened: France - Spain - France - US... Nope don't see any American citizens on that list, so where's this coercion part? And since you aren't talking about Indians owning the land, we can assume that you're talking out of your @%%

And why.. out of the 1b+ acres of land, only 270 million acres of it was sent back into the private hands? Like it was originally intended....

I guess you never read the Equal Footing Doctrine....

What does the fact that gov't didn't give away all it's land have to do w/ anything? We're talking about gov't role in the expansion of the Midwest and rail lines.

[Hot_Handz]

Originally Posted by EddieB.Good

You don't even see how you've proven yourself wrong. There's a reason why settlers were pressuring the military to take care of the Indians. The settlers were too far apart, too disorganized to do it themselves. That was the same fear of the Indians that prevented people in the East from settling in the Midwest. No one was "worried about westward expansion" but they weren't going to move there until that problem was dealt w/ or they were incentivized enough w/ free land to calm their fears.

No, they weren't "disorganized" or "scared"...Civilians still had guns and could have blown Indians through the floor had it been necessary... and which they were ready to do.

No, the reason some of the southern states surrendered westward land claims was in exchange for the government to "remove" Indians on "peaceable and reasonable terms" i.e. Georgia was one of these states...which was an early form of rent seeking..

and that is coercion.

Oh yea and we slaughtered them anyway.

Private rails funded by gov't subsidies! Roads are completely different scenario b/c that doesn't require the same level capital investment to build. Trying to compare railways to roads being built privately is like trying to compare the shipping industry to people hollowing out canoes on the weekend.

They are different only by sheer capital....but if the citizens were more than willing to invest in the facilitation of road building....why not rails? I will tell you why... because they were.

I already pointed out how roads were being built, through private investment, prior to the railroad boom and how it became a disaster due to government intervention.

It's not conjecture. It's called history. Rails had been in Europe for decades before the American railroad booms, and made dozens of Europeans rich , yet Americans didn't start investing in rails until the gov't stepped in. Explain that. Your ideal "private enterprise" was there for the taking, w/ European rails as the blueprint. If private demand was there, and the Indian menace was not a threat, why didn't American rail lines start popping up until the gov't stepped in?

Because the industry was already cartelized!!

Historical fact!

A historical fact is that our government has planned on centralizing power and used the smokescreen of the "common good" to do so.

Point A - private interests would have developed the country REGARDLESS

Point B - the government acted in the greater good for the GOVERNMENT

Point C - the logic you use to champion the governments role in railroading then is exactly why Walmart has killed Main St and Mom & Pop shops TODAY

No.

Yes, the private enterprises would have only lost money because of the bureaucracy. What James J Hill did was in SPITE of protectionist measures. Which is why, even as the lone example, it's so impressive.

A little thing you might have heard about called the Lousiana purchase was where the bulk of that land came from. Let's see if we can find where the coercion happened: France - Spain - France - US... Nope don't see any American citizens on that list, so where's this coercion part? And since you aren't talking about Indians owning the land, we can assume that you're talking out of your @%%

Redshadowz post laid it out....better than I could.

And again, private entities did not see all of that land, it was still being leveraged by the government.

What does the fact that gov't didn't give away all it's land have to do w/ anything? We're talking about gov't role in the expansion of the Midwest and rail lines.

What does it have to do with??

Well, for consistencies sake, it would make sure you do not cherry pick constitutional law....that land was not supposed to be squatted on by the Federal Government.

YOU are talking about the expansion of the midwest and railways.. I am talking about governments self serving interests and using the railroad boom as an example of how the federal government granted themselves a state controlled monopoly and have always acted on behalf of the federal governments interest at a premium.

The way they obtained the land may or may not have been constitutional, them not giving it back to the people, however, was not. So it's just another example that illustrates my point which you refuse to be nailed to.

And last time I checked this thread was, generally, about how the government acted in the best interest of the nation (through the homestead act) and it implies that these events would have never happened had it been for them.

You proceeded to bring up the railroad land grants which was one of the worst examples you could EVER give because it was everything that is wrong with this country...today!!

Let me know if there is anything else you wanted to clear up....

[crbcrbrgv]

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

Or you could go a little deeper than that superficial analysis and see that what conservatives complain about isn't free stuff. The government owned that land and gave it away for free. The government does not, however, own the birth control it is mandating to be given away for free. Giving person A birth control paid for with person B's insurance premiums isn't free. It's government wealth redistribution from one private citizen to another private citizen.

What are your thoughts on Viagra?

[EddieB.Good]

Originally Posted by Hot_Handz

No, they weren't "disorganized" or "scared"...Civilians still had guns and could have blown Indians through the floor had it been necessary... and which they were ready to do.

Uh huh. Plots of land that were miles wide, in sparsely populated areas, and typically held one family is the perfect scenario to build cohesion w/ your neighbors.

No, the reason some of the southern states surrendered westward land claims was in exchange for the government to "remove" Indians on "peaceable and reasonable terms" i.e. Georgia was one of these states...which was an early form of rent seeking..

and that is coercion.

Oh yea and we slaughtered them anyway.

Lol... surrendered land claims to something they had no right to, to ask the gov't to do something they weren't able to do on their own.

They are different only by sheer capital....but if the citizens were more than willing to invest in the facilitation of road building....why not rails? I will tell you why... because they were.

I already pointed out how roads were being built, through private investment, prior to the railroad boom and how it became a disaster due to government intervention.

"By sheer capital" in the sense that the only thing stopping people from building & launching a satellite on their own vs building a ham radio on their is "sheer capital." No one ever went bankrupt building a road. You want to put compare things that are actually comparable, why didn't "private enterprise" build highways?

Because the industry was already cartelized!!

And when you've lost the discussion, throw out absurd claims of criminality. Fact is Americans had a blueprint for building railroads that existed for DECADES and no private enterprise bit, even when they knew that railroads had made dozens of Europeans rich.

A historical fact is that our government has planned on centralizing power and used the smokescreen of the "common good" to do so.

Point A - private interests would have developed the country REGARDLESS

Point B - the government acted in the greater good for the GOVERNMENT

Point C - the logic you use to champion the governments role in railroading then is exactly why Walmart has killed Main St and Mom & Pop shops TODAY

A. And yet they didn't, despite decades of awareness of European railways.
B. I'm not a capitalist slave. I can see gov't doing something that helps its own cause, WHILE helping the average joe. How is the gov't doing what it did different that private enterprise doing it? Are you suggesting that private enterprise is more benevolent that gov't...
C. Except that um... railroads didn't exist before gov't started subsidizing them, so that means that it's nothing like your Walmart example.

Yes, the private enterprises would have only lost money because of the bureaucracy. What James J Hill did was in SPITE of protectionist measures. Which is why, even as the lone example, it's so impressive.

Lol... A guy that got into a business 60 years after the gov't started funding it, is an example of why the gov't shouldn't have started funding it to begin with.

Redshadowz post laid it out....better than I could.

And again, private entities did not see all of that land, it was still being leveraged by the government.

So you don't know what "coercion" means. Got it.

What does it have to do with??

Well, for consistencies sake, it would make sure you do not cherry pick constitutional law....that land was not supposed to be squatted on by the Federal Government.

YOU are talking about the expansion of the midwest and railways.. I am talking about governments self serving interests and using the railroad boom as an example of how the federal government granted themselves a state controlled monopoly and have always acted on behalf of the federal governments interest at a premium.

The way they obtained the land may or may not have been constitutional, them not giving it back to the people, however, was not. So it's just another example that illustrates my point which you refuse to be nailed to.

So what was the "constitutional" way to disperse land that the Fed gov't claimed?

And last time I checked this thread was, generally, about how the government acted in the best interest of the nation (through the homestead act) and it implies that these events would have never happened had it been for them.

You proceeded to bring up the railroad land grants which was one of the worst examples you could EVER give because it was everything that is wrong with this country...today!!

Let me know if there is anything else you wanted to clear up....

You want to win this argument, show why private enterprise didn't build railroads on their own? They had time, access to the land, and no competition. What happened?