Back in the Air Again

The Antiplanner is in Washington DC today to participate in a debate over the Purple light-rail line–or, as I like to call it, the Purple Money Eater. In conjunction with this debate, the Maryland Public Policy Institute will release a detailed critique of the proposed low-capacity transit line; Antiplanner readers can download a preview today.

Predictably, rail supporters are claiming that the supposedly evil Koch Brothers “dispatched” me to fight this rail project. In reality, I doubt that light rail is even on the Koch Brothers’ radar screen, since there is no light rail in Kansas (where they are headquartered) and no proposals for any as far as I know. (Could it be that’s not a coincidence?)
This summary food can do viagra best prices wonders for the sexual health of women. Therefore, you must have to keep fait on the available scopes and above all on you viagra 20mg in india also. It carries Sildenafil citrate that is too important for the man to get over this issue. best price viagra 100mg online could deliver and no other pill can give them. The organic proportions of testosterone begin to douse when we smack the epoch of 35-40 and continues on declining since we mature old. viagra 100 mg find out for more info now
We’ll see what the rail supporters say tonight. If you are in the DC area, I hope to see you in Silver Spring at 7 pm.

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

16 Responses to Back in the Air Again

  1. gecko55 says:

    Well the Koch Bros may not “dispatch” the AP, but they are not “supposedly evil.” They are just plain evil. Or at least extremely radical and anti-democratic.

  2. metrosucks says:

    but they are not “supposedly evil.” They are just plain evil. Or at least extremely radical and anti-democratic.

    Presumably, however, George Soros and Tom Steyer spreading their money around is perfectly OK with you.

  3. Frank says:

    “Or at least extremely radical and anti-democratic.”

    You know what’s radical? The federal government mandating everyone purchase a product or a service.

    Anti-democratic? Good. The United States is not a democracy.

  4. Builder says:

    Whenever liberals bring up the Koch brothers, you know they desperately want to avoid discussing the facts regarding a topic. I would hold it as a badge of pride if I were accused of being a tool of the Koch brothers.

  5. I’ve never met any of the Koch family, but I understand they support gay marriage, ending the war on drugs, and reduced U.S. involvement in overseas wars. Considering that a majority of Americans oppose or have recently opposed these things, that sounds pretty radical and undemocratic to me. The point of the Constitution is that there are some things that shouldn’t be decided through democracy.

  6. gecko55 says:

    The platform that David Koch ran on in 1980 as the Libertarian candidate for VP included the following:

    “We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
    “We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
    “We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
    “We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
    “We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
    “We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
    “We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
    “We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
    “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
    “We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
    “We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
    “We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
    “We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
    “We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
    “We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
    “We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
    “We demand the return of America’s railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
    “We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called “self-protection” equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
    “We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
    “We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
    “We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
    “We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
    “We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
    “We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
    “We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
    “We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”

    OK, that was 35 years ago. Still, the evidence clearly suggests they hold most if not all of these positions today, and in fact a number of these points have become or are close to becoming reality, e.g., the repeal of federal campaign laws — to the detriment of the US in my view. I also I think the vast majority of US citizens find these positions to be quite radical.

    I do, however, agree with the AP on this: ” The point of the Constitution is that there are some things that shouldn’t be decided through democracy.” Switzerland where I live is a model of direct democracy. And it generally works quite well; stable, conservative, orderly. Still, in most cantons women couldn’t vote until the 1960s and 1970s. And it took a decision from the federal court in November 1990(!) for women in the half-canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden to gain voting rights. I’d also add that tax evasion is not against the law in Switzerland (as David Koch advocated in 1980); nice theory, doesn’t seem to work so well in practice.

  7. Frank says:

    Wow. Someone can copy and paste from socialist Bernie Sanders’ website!

    Characterizing positions you do not agree with is evil? Ok! Let’s play that game! Socialism is evil because it relies on confiscation, intimidation, and the initiation of violence. Wait…hold on…my phone is ringing. Oh, 1991 is calling to remind the world that socialism failed. Big time.

    Oh, and read Iced Borscht’s (where is he these days?) response to the argumentum ad Kochem. It’s the evil socialists’ mantra. And all they have.

  8. metrosucks says:

    gecko55 apparently expected us to just fall down and gratefully thank him for pointing out the Koch’s evil ways after he copied & pasted (thank you Frank) that little list. I could think of way worse things that could happen to this country than getting the federal government (and government, in general) out of our hair.

  9. bennett says:

    Koch, Soros, etc. and the politicians that take their money in a quid pro quo exchange for making policy are harming America regardless of their politics. That’s not a republic. That’s not a democracy. It’s plutocracy at best, oligarchy at worst.

    If a certain group of people with a unified ideology want to pay Mr. O’Toole to do his work, I have no problem with that.

  10. Frank says:

    Wealth transfers and policy making (particularly massive state intervention in the economy) are what’s harming America. End those, and plutocracy and oligarchy vanish with them.

  11. Frank says:

    All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are.”

    H.L. Mencken

  12. Not Sure says:

    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” – P. J. O’Rourke

  13. Sandy Teal says:

    Most people who want limits on political contributions just want to cut the contributions to their opponents. And the ones who want to severely want limit political contributions are the press (who gets unlimited contributions) and unions (who exempt themselves).

    If the President has the power by himself to rearrange 15% of the US economy and invent rules on his own power, then spending $1-3 billion on the election is just small potatoes.

  14. bennett says:

    “Most people who want limits on political contributions just want to cut the contributions to their opponents…”

    I disagree. My social circle is an approximated 80-20 split of progressiveish and libertarianesque individuals. Most of my circle recognize the divisive role money plays in politics. Some see the problem as rampant and unethical quid pro quo exchanges. My more conservative colleges see the issue as nobody seems to be governing, only fundraising. My progressive friends hate the rise of the PAC’s and lament the fact that progressive politicians and organizations have started playing the game. They also recognize the divisive role unions play in politics. Some even see many unions as having outlived their initial usefulness.

    And the number is $7 billion (if you include congress). And dismissing it as small potatoes misses the mark big time. Sure $7 billion is small compared to the several trillion dollar American economy, but if the $7 billion is an investment ensuring that the economy is rearranged to benefit a select group of elites, it is far from insignificant. This just means that those that have usurped the American economy are getting a great value.

  15. Sandy Teal says:

    Despite all the money spent on campaigns, I probably only cast an intelligent vote on 1/4 of the ballot each election. I have no idea who these people are running for school board, judges, sheriff, comptroller, coroner, etc. and etc. And I read more news than 80% of the population.

    Restrictions on free speech certainly should not be done lightly, and of course the restrictions that politicians most want are restrictions on criticizing incumbent politicians when they run for re-election.

  16. bennett says:

    I suppose I wish our legal definition of speech matched the actual definition. I would define secretly giving money to politicians in exchange for political favors and policy decisions benefiting the donor (often at the expense of others) as corruption, not speech.

    Sure, I want my team to win, but I won’t let the ends justify the means (despite anecdotal evidence regarding “what people want”).

Leave a Reply