Today the Antiplanner is traveling to Albany, New York, to speak at a conference on Chocolates are found to be rich viagra without prescriptions canada in endorphins which gives you a good feeling and perks your sexual desire. Valuable tips for oldies to preserve carnal health Frankly generic sildenafil from india sharing your issues, necessities, wants and concerns can support you and your partner will feel unsatisfied and marital discord may arise between both of you. Overwork, cut-throat competition leads to physical weakness and above india online cialis all, mental stress. These feelings some time turns into guilt when men feel that they are unable to achieve a acquisition de viagra greyandgrey.com lasting erection sufficient for engaging in sexual activity, owing to a host of factors. property rights. If you are at the conference, I look forward to seeing you there.
Back in the Air Again
Bookmark the permalink.
What better place for a conference on property rights than the home of “Barack Osama”.
Well if ROT had to work for a living, he wouldn’t be able to travel so much.
Enjoy Clinton’s big ditch, while you’re in Albany.
Well if ROT had to work for a living, he wouldn’t be able to travel so much.
Why are you always so negative? In case you hadn’t noticed, Randal is a libertarian pundit who is PAID to do things like speak at conservative and libertarian conferences, among other things. There are plenty of factual and analysis issues that his loyal opponents can attack him on, but there is NO value in personal and cheap shot attacks. Such attacks actually undermine the credibility of the anti-Antiplanner position, IMHO.
If you have something substantive to criticize Randal on, please post it. But spare us the cheap shots.
Mr. Setty that’s insulting to real conservatives, we don’t want stuff done based on bull shit.
Think about it, ROT gets paid to make stuff up.
the highwayman said: ROT gets paid to make stuff up.
JK: Please prove it. Or shut up.
Thanks
JK
Hiwyman,
Randal may not often get his facts straight on this site, but that doesn’t mean he does it for a paycheck; he gets paid to make partisan analyses. I wouldn’t call him a paid shill. Steven Milloy is a paid shill. Fred Singer, paid shill. IMO Randal is not a paid shill. I’m with Setty on this one.
DS
So, Mr. Highwayman, what is a “real conservative?”
Unlike someone such as Milloy or Singer, I am also sure that Randal believes what he writes. He’s convinced me of that. I violently disagree with him 95% of the time, but I don’t question his motives, nor the sincerity of advocacy groups such as Reason Foundation or the American Public Transit Association.
I’m pretty certain that Randal doesn’t get a “paycheck” per se; rather he gets paid “by the job” like I do as a transportation consultant. Unless he is now getting a monthly stipend since becoming formally affiliated with the CATO Institute; but then, SO WHAT? There is no moral turpitude in working for and getting paid by a cause one believes in.
Regarding my attacks on libertarians, if you’ve read the most recent posts on my blog, you’ll see that I don’t hesitate to criticize libertarian “think tanks” when they go off on a whole riff based on bizarre number crunching (e.g., the Washington Policy Center’s truly odd mangling of transit ridership projections), or a New Zealand-based road/sprawl apologist who just couldn’t get basic, indisputable, Google Maps-verifiable facts about Orenco Station TOD in Portland, Oregon, correct.
Mr. Setty wrote:
“There is no moral turpitude in working for and getting paid by a cause one believes in.”
The same could also be said of David Duke.
The same could also be said of David Duke.
One knows an argument on the Internet has declined beyond all redemption when Nazis, or neo-Nazis/racists like David Duke, are brought up.
Well, “the same could also be said” for the paid staff of almost any legitimate charity, or the work of Mother Theresa and many thousands of others who work with the poorest of the poor in India and elsewhere. Sheesh!
BTW, you didn’t tell us what you think a “real conservative” is. I’m still wondering.
Ironicly the mentioning of racism is relevent as this is in a similar vain.
Why should libertarians dictate how individuals live their lives & deny people of even basic freedom?
Highwayman: Why should libertarians dictate how individuals live their lives & deny people of even basic freedom?
JK: You are again showing you ignorance of reality.
Libertarians DO NOT ADVOCATE DICTATING ANYTHING TO ANYBODY. They only advocate reasonable laws to ensure an even playing field in a free market. That includes laws against fraud in the marketplace.
Thanks
JK
Well only in theory, though not in practice.
msetty wrote:
> The same could also be said of David Duke.
>
> One knows an argument on the Internet has declined beyond all redemption when Nazis, or neo-Nazis/racists
> like David Duke, are brought up.
>
> Well, “the same could also be said†for the paid staff of almost any legitimate charity, or the work of
> Mother Theresa and many thousands of others who work with the poorest of the poor in India and elsewhere.
> Sheesh!
>
> BTW, you didn’t tell us what you think a “real conservative†is. I’m still wondering.
Mr. Setty, I am usually not in agreement with you, but I strongly second your remarks above.
Why should libertarians dictate how individuals live their lives & deny people of even basic freedom?
I HATE the day when I have to agree with Karlock on something, but he’s correct in this case. Libertarians are not deliberately dictating any particular way how people should live.
That said, the libertarian intellectual errors when it comes to cities, land use, and transportation are their apparently cherished beliefs that the existing situation in the U.S. is almost solely the result of “the market” and personal preferences, and to dismiss, through linguistic sleigh of hand, the hundreds of billions spent annually by the private sector to support the automotive infrastructure.
I get the strong feeling many libertarians have never heard of government-enforced parking requirements, the increasing structural inflexiblity of the “path dependence” resulting from nearly 100 years of extreme public policy favoritism towards the motor vehicle/highway/parking transportation system, let alone the apparent libertarian pooh-poohing of the now highly ingrained social and economic structural outcomes resulting from historically “dirt cheap” oil (which is now just relatively cheap).
Hey, I’ve noticed these glaring double standards for years too!
When ever libertarians say “free market”, it sounds more like shoplifting.
They’ll complain about government, yet at the same time they’re in bed with it.
Hey, I’ve noticed these glaring double standards for years too!
Well, most of Randal’s critics also have. My criticism of you is simply that name-calling like you engage in too often doesn’t help convince those who need to be convinced, e.g., NOT libertarians. If some libertarian or conservative flack is a proven liar, along with you I don’t hesitate to call them a liar. Randal might torture information occasionally, but he’s proven sincere about what he believes.
Unlike say, Wendell Cox, most of the data that Randal cites is either referenced from reliable sources, and/or he presents base data in an understandable format. If you look at Cox’s sites at http://www.demographia.com or http://www.publicpurpose.com, you’ll notice that most of the statistical items shown are CALCULATED results, and original source data is almost never provided. Often times, I haven’t been able of make head or tails of exactly what Cox or his statistics monkey did. In some cases, I “reverse engineered” a Cox table to calculate what the original base data was, which typically allowed me to crunch the numbers differently, often resulting in opposite conclusions from those of Cox.
In other words, Randal’s work is generally more “transparent” than Cox’s. Sometimes Randal overemphasizes one dimensional measures–such as total passenger miles–in situations where more information–such as the percentage of total trips by the various modes–gives a more nuanced, complete view. Of course, I’m not saying since that because much of Randal’s work is transparent, that it is also nuanced. Quite the contrary, but par for libertarians!
I’m with Mike. Whatever else, in my mind, Randal’s arguments are pure. Say what you will about their translation to policy and events on the ground, but it is clear to me that Randal feels passionately about the arguments he makes and works hard to have an argument.
You don’t see Randal making widdle remarks OT. I respect an argument much more when – as is the case with Randal – I have to dig to make my response work. There are certain commenters here whose transparently silly “evidence” isn’t even worth reading. And there are commenters here who have been asked to back their claims and instead wave their hands. Let us strive, here, to ensure we can back our claims (right h?). At least there are some of us who know that we have to work when we comment here.
Enough.
DS
http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-ot-rail%26fwy98.htm
Though Cox & O’Toole are one in the same vain.
“Well only in theory, though not in practice. ”
–Highwayman
Care to share any examples? You do realize your claim is a bit like claiming a priest doesn’t believe in god, right?
I know this is a big paradox with a lot of libertarians, most never realize just how the street is operated in front of their residences.
Then they go off and do an Animal Farm like “four lanes good, two tracks bad” reaction.
ROT, with you property rights is sham.
To you only roads should have rights and nothing else!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjtPBiOJuSk&feature=related