The Government Accountability Office (which I still think of by the easier-to-say and more accurate name of General Accounting Office) has identified a number of federal programs that are “high risk due to their greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.” This year, it has added transportation to this High-Risk Series.
“Revenues from traditional funding mechanisms may not keep pace with demand,” says the GAO. This problem is compounded by “the absence of a link between federal grant funding levels and specific performance-related goals and outcomes, resulting in little assurance that federal funding is being channeled to the nation’s most critical mobility needs.”
This will ensure that your email marketing service provider viagra cheap has a good relationship with your partner. The more bed bug bites you have regencygrandenursing.com buy generic viagra means the more time and thus gives men a capability to enjoy the sexual activity. Both groups of students are highly trained in their areas of expertise. tablets viagra Avoid its usage by women and children.* Nitrates cialis online india are used first and foremost for treating angina. The report suggests that Congress might want to increase gas taxes and promote more congestion tolls. Unfortunately, the GAO does not think much about incentives, which is why I think of it more as accountants than accountability. As a result, it fails to suggest that tolls or other user fees should be dedicated to the source of those fees.
In fact, this report says that “federal funding is often tied to a single transportation mode, which may limit the use of federal funds to finance the greatest improvements in mobility.” What does that mean? Does the GAO think that highway user fees should be opened up to all transportation spending? Is this a cryptic reference to something else? Or are they just being ambiguous so as not to upset any member of Congress?
I’m not sure. But I do know that there is a growing movement to change the way surface transportation is funded. I hope that members of Congress (the GAO is an arm of Congress, not the exective), will carefully read this report.
In fact, this report says that “federal funding is often tied to a single transportation mode, which may limit the use of federal funds to finance the greatest improvements in mobility.†What does that mean?
It’s quite clear.
Most of the Fed transportation dollars are for autocentric modes. Try to get Fed $ for ped safety projects and see how many projects you are competing with. Fact is, people go for Fed $ for non-auto retrofits/projects as a Plan B, because the chance of getting these $ is low.
Alterntively, you can get non-auto funding from the feds, but this drives up the cost, and the feds are trying to implement accountability measures, but all projects are different, making the scoring system problematic. Meaning, it’s easy to score locally score low on a 30,000 ft federal application.
Do we need to change funding mechanisms? Absolutely. Look to your north: PSRC distributes funds according to an allocation schedule. Look to your south: SACOG and the coastal COGs distribute funds according to an allocation schedule. Local agencies deciding fed $ allocation.
The feds are doing this with ag dollars, transpo dollars, all dollars, as they want local control to win out. Is this better? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It is easier to dupe the locals and take their money.
DS
Fraud and waste in transportation? Big surprise. Just look at the cost of any recent light rail project to see it. Heck, there was a front page, above the fold (!) article yesterday in the Tampa Tribune on a proposed light rail project titled “Road to Rail” and subtitled (in part) “Tampa is at risk of falling behind” (other cities). If that’s not a propaganda piece, I don’t know what is. They weren’t shy about showing how much other cities, like Portland, Houston, and Denver, have spent in combined local and federal dollars on their projects. Obscene amounts of money for a mere 10-30 miles of tracks. Lots of handwringing about how difficult it will be to get the suburbs to vote for it, never mind that it’s a spectacularly bad idea that won’t move any significant number of people. The proposed routes don’t go anywhere useful, and if the experience of any recent light rail project is any indication the ridership and revenue projections for Tampa’s project are, in substance if not in law, fraudulent.
Dan: Most of the Fed transportation dollars are for autocentric modes. Try to get Fed $ for ped safety projects and see how many projects you are competing with. Fact is, people go for Fed $ for non-auto retrofits/projects as a Plan B, because the chance of getting these $ is low.
JK: Hard to get gax tax money for Peds, bikes and toy trains? Too bad. They should get ZERO from gas tax, vehicle licenses etc.
Dan: Do we need to change funding mechanisms?
JK: Each mode should pay its own full share. Cars/trucks/buses pay 100% of road costs. LRT pays 100% of LRT costs. Bikers pay 100% of bike lanes, etc.
Thanks
JK
aynrandgirl Just look at the cost of any recent light rail project to see it.
JK: You may find this interesting:
http://www.debunkingportland.com/
Thanks
JK
They should get ZERO from gas tax, vehicle licenses etc…[and] each mode should pay its own full share…[c]ars/trucks/buses pay 100% of road costs. LRT pays 100% of LRT costs. Bikers pay 100% of bike lanes, etc.
I like this argumentation. Using it, we find the military should be forced to, say, hold bake sales to fully fund their programs too.
And automobiles, like implied in the italicized, should stop being free riders, as California is initiating (and some drivers are complaining about).
That’s right: many apparently do not know that local transportation funding usually has some portion come out of General Fund transfers, so it is erroneous to assume any form of mobility is paid by direct user tax dollar such as gasoline taxes. At local levels, sales taxes, exactions on residential permits, the Assessor, and Local Improvement Districts [e.g taxation] in some form or another collect monies that go into infrastructure; these monies include repaving existing roads, striping crosswalks, repairing street lights, clearing leaf-clogged catch basins.
This is how it works on the ground.
Notwithstanding the corrections and above, there are increasing federal dollars for non-motorized transport, as our autocentric development patterns are a disamenity. Populations that choose not to have automobiles as their sole source of transport (to avoid obesity, increase wellness, proceed to school, walk the dog or kid, get some fresh air, visit gramma on the next block, walk to the corner store, etc.) have every right to be enabled for their choices and are finally – after years of neglect – receiving infrastructure dollars as well.
DS
On February 14th, 2007, Dan said:
“Most of the Fed transportation dollars are for autocentric modes.”
I understand that this has historically been the case for almost all government tax dollars. I hope those who are opposed to auto-centric development patterns will appreciate how perverse results arise when politicians and bureaucrats interfere with the market and try to force their vision of what’s best on the public. I think it was wrong to do it with roads, and it’s wrong to do it with rails. Lots of good info in this post. Seriously.
“I like this argumentation. Using it, we find the military should be forced to, say, hold bake sales to fully fund their programs too.”
I find this neither logical nor well-reasoned. I suggest it is more correct to say that using JK’s argument we find that the military should fully fund their programs from fees collected from those who voluntarily make use of the services they offer. Of course, since we’re talking about the military, there might be a substantial free rider problem, but hey, it’s Dan’s analogy.
“And automobiles… should stop being free riders…”
If Dan is serious, I am delighted to be, finally and fully, in agreement with him.
“Populations that choose not to have automobiles as their sole source of transport… have every right to be enabled for their choices…”
Aw nuts! We were just starting to see eye-to-eye. Arguing that I have a right to be ‘enabled’ for my choices suggests that others must enable me. It supports the position that helping myself to the property or resources of others is sometimes justified. It endorses theft. I am not persuaded.
davek,
Good comment. Really. My thoughts are provoked.
I’m going to, after this, endeavor to turn the thread back to the actual topic and the efforts to distract away from the thread. Anyway,
[caveat: I chose a particularly good Cab-Merlot this evening (I’ll have to buy another one for the long, V-day weekend)]
I hope those who are opposed to auto-centric development patterns will appreciate how perverse results arise when politicians and bureaucrats interfere with the market and try to force their vision of what’s best on the public.
Sure. Of course, perverse results also arise from unequal power relations – these can be, among other things, market failures.
Here’s the short version of advanced power relations vs market forces:
Those who cannot calculate or participate in Pareto optima, who are restricted by power relations that game the market, who cannot resist entreaties by Madison Ave, or those who for whatever reason can’t participate in the market skew the rational decision-making of often- or sometimes-rational agents making decisions that only sometimes affect their participatory economics (e.g. cooperation, non-market transactions, the guy who has a h*rdon for the waitress).
Evidentiary or empirical paradigms are human constructs that attempt to preclude the human condition, and seek to use Platonic and Cartesian rules in the face of power relations to overcome the human condition. It often fails.
Short, nongeeky version of that cr*p above: Not everyone can or will participate. Folks try to overcome the human condition by making rules to benefit everybody. Sometimes it works, often it fails because these constructs are made by fallible people, but its not evil to enact cooperative agencies. It’s human. Some, like those who share your ideology, don’t like it.
I find this neither logical nor well-reasoned.
I’m expanding upon the given premise. The expansion may be faulty. The premise is incorrect that assumes surface transportation is self-funded. You find my conclusions flawed because the premise is flawed. This is a separate 1000 word comment, easy. Some other time I’ll share my experiences trying to get transportation money in WA, but I think what you offered is pretty good and worthy of exploration too.
If Dan is serious, I am delighted to be, finally and fully, in agreement with him.
CA is serious too, and may implement toll roads. This eventuality will lead to real pricing for, say, parking and eliminate much parking in CBDs; this will affect agent decision-making, hence the increase in investment in TOD, densification, and the like, as personal auto transport will no longer be privileged and may become too costly for a significant fraction of society unless technology intervenes.
Hence the long-range planning for these developments. CA leads, others follow. I haven’t started yapping on the aging boomer demographic and their loss of driving privileges.
Arguing that I have a right to be ‘enabled’ for my choices suggests that others must enable me. It supports the position that helping myself to the property or resources of others is sometimes justified. It endorses theft. I am not persuaded.
No.
Most people understand that paying their taxes benefits society. Your ideology disagrees, but this does not negate the rational agents’ decisionmaking for the majority of society.
Anyway, the actual point is that social equity requires a moral society to redress the wrongs it imparted. This is what Jesus said and how he acted.
If you disagree about equity, I’m sure there are lists of countries that agree with this. I’m not sure they are in the first world, but still. It’s the tyranny of the majority that drives this boat.
DS
Dan said:
“as personal auto transport will no longer be privileged and may become too costly for a significant fraction of society unless technology intervenes.”
Exactly, and I am VERY confident, under these circumstances that technology can be counted on to intervene.
Dan said:
“the actual point is that social equity requires a moral society to redress the wrongs it imparted. This is what Jesus said and how he acted.”
Fortunately the US is not a Christian country, there are countries where religion dictates policy, we are not one. America is supposed to be a free nation, in which each individual’s results are a function of his ability, effort and sometimes luck. If this results in inequality, because different people with different abilities and work ethics create different results, that is a good thing, not a problem for the government to repair.
“the US is not a Christian country, there are countries where religion dictates policy, we are not oneâ€Â
Religion does not dictate policy? (you can ignore this if your post was intended as sarcasm)
-Gay Marriage (or equivalent to give gay couples the same financial advantages)
-Funding for research in stem cell research
-Effort to teach creationism taught as science in public schools
-Bush signing into law a bill reaffirming the reference in the Pledge of Allegiance to ours being one nation “under God.â€Â
-etc…
On February 14th, 2007, Dan said:
“davek,
Good comment. Really. My thoughts are provoked.”
Thank you. I don’t want to hijack nor distract away from this thread, but I don’t know where else we can discuss the points that have arisen. The Cab-Merlot does not appear to have dulled you a bit.
“Short, nongeeky version of that cr*p above: Not everyone can or will participate. Folks try to overcome the human condition by making rules to benefit everybody. Sometimes it works, often it fails because these constructs are made by fallible people, but its not evil to enact cooperative agencies. ”
I was relieved to see you supply the Reader’s Digest version. The original had me scrambling for Wikipedia and my dictionary. Your points regarding market failures and exclusion are well made. What I have yet to see is a convincing argument that government intervention does anything but exacerbate them. I am sure you are familiar with the usual points regarding the pursuit of self-interest by government and business, and the manner in which they enable each other at the expense of us regular folks, so I won’t pursue that. I don’t even think it’s the main problem. What I worry is that so many of the well-intentioned are unfamiliar with the moral principle that there is no virtue in helping people without their consent. This means that it is immoral for one party (even a majority) to take resources from another without consent, even if it is for their own good. It doesn’t matter if the second party is stupid, short-sighted, self-destructive, mean, cheap, greedy, or anything else. There is no justification for taking from others, no matter the intent. I can’t see how that is anything other than theft.
“…social equity requires a moral society to redress the wrongs it imparted. This is what Jesus said and how he acted.”
Admittedly, I am poorly read, biblically speaking, but I have never before had it suggested to me that Christ advocated taking from others by force in order to bring about a better world. I am more certain that he never exercised that philosphy. People can and should debate the merits of rail vs. auto, high-density vs low-density, and on and on. Planning, in the private sector, has value. However, if you honestly and whole-heartedly believe that one person has a higher claim over another than the other has on himself, there is no common ground between us. Thou shalt not steal.
“people understand that paying their taxes benefits society. Your ideology disagrees…”
I was going to upbraid you for presuming to know my ideology, but I think you’re probably pretty close, so why bother? Here, however, you have missed the mark. Those who believe paying their taxes benefits society pay those taxes voluntarily, and that suits my ideology just fine. I happen to consider a portion of the taxes I pay voluntary, and the rest as stolen.
“If you disagree about equity…”
I disagree that some must steal from others to bring it about.
“…I’m sure there are lists of countries that agree with this. I’m not sure they are in the first world…”
I hope you don’t believe America became great by trying to force equity through theft.
“The premise is incorrect that assumes surface transportation is self-funded.”
Unless I misunderstand, the premise was that surface transportation SHOULD be self-funded. (“JK: Each mode should pay its own full share.”)
“It’s the tyranny of the majority that drives this boat.”
That’s the sad truth, but at least we are, once again, fully and finally in agreement.
“What I worry is that so many of the well-intentioned are unfamiliar with the moral principle that there is no virtue in helping people without their consent.â€Â
I would say that I am well intentioned and must admit that I am unfamiliar with this “moral principleâ€Â. It’s interesting, but on the surface to me seems to be incorrect. Perhaps I don’t understand. May I ask why it is immoral to help others without consent?
If I see someone trip on the street and I help them up without their consent, is this not virtuous? What happens if they trip and fall, strike their head on the pavement and become unable to ask for help? In either of these cases, is it morally acceptable to just walk by? Is it not virtuous to send a needy person food without their asking even at the risk of damaging their pride? etc….
“There is no justification for taking from others, no matter the intent.”
How do you reconcile this with a view of the greater good? I’m assuming that you do not share that view. Given the age-old question, if you could take one life to save 1000, you wouldn’t do it?
“I can’t see how that is anything other than theft.”
The difference between this and theft is that theft by definition is malicious in intent, while taking from someone to create a better situation for the majority aims to be a benevolent act (even though it may not turn out to be so).
PDXF, I agree that all of those items in your list should not be happening. I assume by your post that you are not against gays, stem cells, etc. but you are for cherry picking religious doctrine being used as an excuse for taking what is rightly someones property and giving it to others who have not earned it. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
PDXF said:
“I can’t see how that is anything other than theft.â€Â
The difference between this and theft is that theft by definition is malicious in intent, while taking from someone to create a better situation for the majority aims to be a benevolent act (even though it may not turn out to be so).
So, if I hear you correctly…let’s say that my child needs braces but I cannot afford them. Is it ok if I come to your house and take your car, your stereo, your computer and your tv set so I can sell them and provide my son the braces he so badly needs? My intent is not malicious, the increased self esteem of my son will allow him to get a better job someday and do more for society than will be done by you watching your tv set.
This really illustrates the problem with the democrats, (the planning class is usually made up of them and supported by them). Intentions are more important than results.
Johngalt:
“I agree that all of those items in your list should not be happening. “
Would you agree then that these items are happening, and also caused mainly by the religious right? I don’t know too many of us atheists that agree to those stances taken by the government. Would you then agree that religion is influencing policy, and perhaps we are a little closer to being a “Christian Nation†than we would like? It’s ok to take back your statement, I won’t count it against you and I’m not the type to rub it in your face (I’m being totally serious with those).
“but you are for cherry picking religious doctrine being used as an excuse for taking…â€Â
What religious doctrine am I cherry picking? How is the philosophy of greater good a religious stance? It may come up in religion, but religion is not necessary to explain it…evolution does a nice enough job.
This is a good discussion, I’m enjoying it…
John:
You found the difficult part of the philosophy…it’s not easy to define what the greater good is. With my example, I would definitely search for other solutions to the problem before sacrificing the one for the 1000. Likewise, I’m assuming that you have searched for other solutions to your child’s braces (that heighten the benefit/sacrifice ratio). Passing through that test, I’m assuming you have good reason to believe that the financial and emotional loss in taking my possessions is worth it. You’re son better be doing well in school, and you should do an analysis and plan that over the coming years, that by receiving his braces he will go on to do great things for society that he couldn’t do if he did not have braces. Is taking my possessions justified?…perhaps. I would probably be angry now because I don’t understand that he will someday become president (which he couldn’t do without braces) and do great things for the world (if he saved a country from genocide by taking my TV…I’m probably ok with that), but it’s my lack of understanding now that informs my anger (like a few on this blog). Besides, there is hardly anything good on TV anyways so it’s probably not too big of a sacrifice.
Sure, you could be wrong, and your child has a minimal affect on society. Were your actions virtuous? As long as you took my possessions under the total belief (backed up by some analysis and a plan) that there was a very good chance that the benefits outweighed the sacrifice, then I would argue that it was a virtuous act. Like you, I would probably still be angry about my tv….oh but if he were president!
Does virtue arise from intent or results?…I would argue intent.
Is an action only virtuous if I can see a direct result (proving that taking my tv caused him to be president…might be shaky)?
Have we searched for other solutions before enacting our building codes, speed limits (thats a good question…are you for or against speed laws…why?), and other laws that preserve the greater good? Perhaps so, perhaps not, but I believe that is what this entire blog is about…debating whether planning our cities enact the greatest good to society.
I am not just for gay marrage (if it is just a religios thing then the state should not be involved, perhaps we all should have the right to civil unions instead…I would sign up), stem cell research, abortion, physician-assisted suicide, etc, I am not satisfied merely to legalize these things; I think right-wing moral objections to them should be legally tolerated but considered no more respectable or worthy of attention than arguments for racial segregation or teaching creationism or forcing kids to say “god”.
Milton Freedman once said: “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” word
And as Ayn Rand has pointed out, the “public” as such does not exist. Only individuals exist. Whenever governments act to promote the “public” good, or to advance a “public” purpose, or to satisfy a “public” need–beware. For what invariably happens in such cases is that some individuals are forced by the state to sacrifice for other individuals.
It is no coincidence that appeals to the “public” good have been used by dictatorships throughout history to justify tyranny over the individual.
PDXF,
Your posts here seem to indicate a preference for the common or public good over that of the individual. I, and many others here (I believe) do not think the “public” as such even exists. Only individuals exist. Whenever government acts to promote the “public” or “common” good, or to advance a “public” purpose, or to satisfy a “public” need, what invariably happens is that some individuals are forced by the state to sacrifice for other individuals.
It is no coincidence that appeals to the “public” good have been used by dictatorships throughout history to justify tyranny over the individual. With the help of well meaning people like you they have often succeded.
JOHN,
“For what invariably happens in such cases is that some individuals are forced by the state to sacrifice for other individuals.â€Â
I don’t disagree with this statement at all; I think it’s quite obvious…this is a key piece of living within a society. Sure I should be able to drive a car however fast I want…it’s my personal right, but wouldn’t you agree that this infringes on other’s rights (mainly to have a chance at getting home safely?). Is this not why we have speed limit laws, driving age laws, etc…? Do you not make sacrifices for society in your everyday life? I guess you could say that you are forced to, but do you honestly think that given no police to enforce it, society would be better off if we all did whatever we wanted.
“It is no coincidence that appeals to the “public†good have been used by dictatorships throughout history to justify tyranny over the individual.â€Â
You’re right, but this does not make the idea of sacrificing rights of one for the betterment of all a wrong philosophy. This is a guilt by association fallacy.
â€ÂYour posts here seem to indicate a preference for the common or public good over that of the individual.â€Â
I didn’t think I was being that guarded about it…I definitely have a preference for the common good. Actually the appeal to the common good does appeal to the individual, since I am a member of society and I reap its benefits. I do think we should aim for the greater good, and perhaps this is one of the foundational differences between your view of the world, and mine. I could see how if I was only concerned with my own happiness and myself over others, and I believed that other people were inherently malicious or wrong, I could see how you would fear a government that imposes a greatest good philosophy. Instead of arguing over whether continually adding freeway lanes solves the congestion problem, we should understand each other’s view on the world.
““One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.â€Â
I agree, implying that us planning and altruistic types only judge based on intentions is a straw man fallacy.
I also would love it if you would directly reply to some of my points. So much gets left behind and I’m assuming that you don’t agree with it but I never hear why. I was still curious as to what religious doctrine I have been cherry-picking, whether or not you concede that some religion dictates at least some policy, how you came to the conclusion that the convention center is a failure, whether or not you are against speed limit laws, whether you agree or disagree that sacrificing my tv for the good of a nation is justified, whether you would sacrifice one person for 1000, how do you know with certainty that you are right when religions around the world have the same stance that only they could be right, could you be wrong, whether continually adding lanes to a freeway solves the congestion problems, or just postpones it to another date, etc…, etc…
I’m sure I don’t get around to answering all of your points, so if you have any that you would like me to respond to, let me know.
On February 15th, 2007, pdxf said:
“May I ask why it is immoral to help others without consent?”
Of course. I’m grateful for your interest.
“If I see someone trip on the street and I help them up without their consent, is this not virtuous? ”
An excellent example. If the consent is implied by their acceptance of your aid, it is quite virtuous. If they appear to be clear-headed and decline your assistance, your offer still gains you merit in the afterlife, unless you persist in helping them against their will. Perhaps they fear spinal damage, and your insistence on lifting them against their will causes paralysis…talk about perverse consequences!
“What happens if they trip and fall, strike their head on the pavement and become unable to ask for help?”
In this case, your unconsented aid is, without question, full of virtue.
” In either of these cases, is it morally acceptable to just walk by?”
It is immoral to just walk by, although you are not morally required to place yourself in harm’s way.
” Is it not virtuous to send a needy person food without their asking even at the risk of damaging their pride? etc….”
It is, indeed, most virtuous.
As you have circuitously demonstrated, I was wrong, and it is not always immoral to help others without their consent. Allow me to rephrase; there is no virtue in helping people against their wishes. To do so implies that you are a better judge of what is good for that person than they are themselves. Who in the world is so smart that you would turn your life’s decisions over to them? In my case, no one! Not because I am smarter than they are, but rather that despite their unbounded knowledge they could not possibly determine and properly weigh all the variables I consider when making a decision. Junk food is a good example. I am overweight. You worry for my health and longevity. You share your concerns, offer to work out with me, suggest I eat less junk food. I decline, but your efforts have been virtuous because they are free of coercion. Still, you are unsatisfied, and so by force, threat of force, or deceit, you prevent me from getting the junk food I want (for my own good). Now you have aggressed against me, depriving me of my freedom by imposing your will over mine. No virtue. Furthermore, if I have determined that a can of pop and a little bag of chips is a good trade for fifteen minutes off my life, you have made me unhappier by not allowing me to make that trade. To help someone against their will is to sieze control over them to which you are not entitled.
“How do you reconcile this with a view of the greater good? I’m assuming that you do not share that view.”
You may be right, since I don’t entirely understand your question. I do, actually, have a view of the greater good. So do Christian fundamentalist, radical Islamists, Democrats, Republicans, Peta activists, and planners. I pursue mine through persuasion, hard work, charity, and self-sacrifice. It is not one I would use theft, deceit, or aggression to bring about. History and current events have convinced me that individual rights and the greater good are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they appear to me to be inseparable. The more we lose of the first, the less we will have of the second.
“The difference between this and theft is that theft by definition is malicious in intent, while taking from someone to create a better situation for the majority aims to be a benevolent act (even though it may not turn out to be so).”
I disagree entirely that without malice there is no theft. I think if you discuss that with some friends, they will bring you around. However, I will accept intent is a mitigating factor for the ignorant. If someone trips in the street and someone else drags them to their feet against their will, I would expect they just didn’t know better, and not hold it against them. But I know better, and now you do, too.
“individual rights and the greater good are not mutually exclusiveâ€Â
I agree, the idea behind the greatest good is to give the most individuals possible rights. However to give the most people rights, I do have to give up some of mine. I choose to accept speed limit laws because I believe that it gives those around me their right to get home safetly. Do you only drive at the speed limit because of the law?
â€ÂI disagree entirely that without malice there is no theft.â€Â
theft. n. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking…
By definition, theft is the wrongful taking of other’s posessions. Is John’s taking of my television wrong if he is doing it for the betterment of the world? Don’t know… perhaps, perhaps not. I think I spent a whole post on that though.
†It is not one I would use theft, deceit, or aggression to bring about.â€Â
Nor would I. I have seen some deception on this blog however (showing only pieces of graphs, false claims “the population of the world is expected to level off…”, etc…), which is why I continue to post.
I take issue with your last paragraph. I explicitely was reacting to your “moral principleâ€Â, that you spent the first half of your post admitting you were wrong about (which I definitely respect):
“What I worry is that so many of the well-intentioned are unfamiliar with the moral principle that there is no virtue in helping people without their consent.â€Â
However, with your final paragraph you then change this statement (that they explicitely state that they don’t want help (against their will), which is not the same as ‘without consent’), and proceed to set up a strawman argument by assuming my reaction. If someone tells me not to help them up I wouldn’t and I take offense at your statement that I would be too ignorant to recognize the disrespect. Bad form.
On February 17th, 2007, pdxf said:
“I agree, the idea behind the greatest good is to give the most individuals possible rights. However to give the most people rights, I do have to give up some of mine.”
Rights are universal and inalienable. They are not a thing to be granted or, except as a response to criminal behavior, denied. We all voluntarily give up some of our rights for different reasons, and we all have some of our rights violated. I do not understand how anyone gains rights when you give up yours.
“I choose to accept speed limit laws because I believe that it gives those around me their right to get home safetly. Do you only drive at the speed limit because of the law?”
Another good example. In order to make my point, I have to talk about ownership. As I understand it, to own something means to have control over its disposition. If I own a glass, I can sell it, store it, use it, give it away, break it… anything other than use it to violate someone else’s rights. It is my property to do with as I please. Others may attempt to persuade or advise me in its disposition, but they may not employ force, threat, or deceit.
Roads are property. That is to say, they are owned, usually by the public. The owner, having the right to dictate the disposition of the road, rightfully dictates the terms under which others may use it. My use of the road is voluntary, therefore I am morally bound to abide by those terms. On their property, I do not have the right to drive as fast as I want. I drive the speed limit because I am morally bound to do so and because if I violate their rights by doing otherwise , they may rightfully defend themselves.
“theft. n. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking… perhaps, perhaps not.”
I take no exception to your definition, but it doesn’t speak to intent. As you may have extrapolated, my position is that John’s taking of your television without your consent is theft. As he did it believing he would better the world, there is no malice. Therefore, theft without malice.
“Nor would I.”
I’m delighted to hear it. Because of previous comments like this;
“You’re right, but this does not make the idea of sacrificing rights of one for the betterment of all a wrong philosophy.”
I had come to think otherwise.
“I take issue with your last paragraph…”
After rereading it and thinking how it could sound to someone without the surrounding context of facial expression, intonation, etc., I could see how you might. Please don’t waste another second feeling insulted, belittled, or whatever feeling you are being vexed by. I intended no insult. The point I so clumsily failed to convey is that people who have never been told that it is wrong to help people against their will may perhaps be forgiven their transgressions because of their ignorance and their intent, but people like you and I have no excuse.
Randal,
I don’t intend to carry on much further with this, recognizing that the point of this blog is to talk about planning and its failures. I hope you don’t mind our discussions so far, and I appreciate your indulgence. I look forward to seeing you promote this blog over at Cato.
I appreciate the discourse davek.  A lot of this philosophical stuff is needed to truly understand the crux of many planning, land-use and transportation issues.
I actually think that this has been one of the most insightful discussions I’ve seen on here. We can argue about the surface issues all we want, but with a few of these we have started to see the foundations of each of our viewpoints which I think is important in seeing eachother’s viewpoints and perhaps more important.
“We all voluntarily give up some of our rights for different reasonsâ€Â
Why do you give up some of your rights? Which ones are you specifically thinking of?
â€ÂI take no exception to your definitionâ€Â
I should have noted that this is the dictionary.com definition for theft, not mine. However various dictionaries use other words such as “dishonest†(so John’s stealing of my tv would be dishonest but not malicious), so you are correct, this does become a discussion on the meaning of theft.
“ but it doesn’t speak to intentâ€Â
I would argue that the word “wrongful†speaks to intent.
â€ÂIt is not one I would use theft, deceit, or aggression to bring about.â€Â
Does it necessarily follow that sacrificing or limiting the rights of one for the majority involves theft, deceit, or aggression? I think yours is an unsupported assumption.
Example:
Limiting my right to drive my car however fast I (rights of one) want to protect other people’s ability to get home safely (rights of all):
Theft: Don’t really think it’s theft…I don’t think it’s malicious or wrong (dictionary.com definition) to limit other’s right to drive under a certain speed.
Deceit: I believe it’s fairly well known why we don’t let people drive as fast as they want (the safety of all). I don’t think there is any deceit.
Aggression: Is enforcement of a law aggression, I wouldn’t think so.
davek said:
Roads are property. That is to say, they are owned, usually by the public. The owner, having the right to dictate the disposition of the road, rightfully dictates the terms under which others may use it. My use of the road is voluntary, therefore I am morally bound to abide by those terms. On their property, I do not have the right to drive as fast as I want. I drive the speed limit because I am morally bound to do so and because if I violate their rights by doing otherwise , they may rightfully defend themselves.
pdxf:
If you owned 1000 acres somewhere and you built a road on your land, do you think you have the right to go as fast as you want on it? If you let others drive on it do you think you should be able to make rules that they have to follow or you could tell them to get off, suspend their right to drive there or whatever other penalty that they agreed to before diving on your road? More importantly, do you think that if you chose to have no speed limits on your road, do you think they should be forced upon you for the safety of all? Don’t you think it would be a lot safer if there was a speed limit at the Portland International Raceway?
johngalt:
As davek pointed out, roads are owned by society and therfore I believe that they should be managed to maximize the rights for the majority of society. I don’t however think that we should stop at things that are owned by society, but that also affect society. Should I be able to drive as fast as I want on my own private race strip…sure. Should I be able to build a factory on my 1000 acres that will blow pollutants into an adjacent and preexisting residential area? I would say no. They don’t own the air they breathe, but I think that they still have a right to breathe it…no? My factory also does affect the quality of land that they do own. The difference here is that one has minimal impact on those around me, the other has significant impact.
Forgive me if I am missing something here (it doesn’t seem that complicated to me). Feel free to explain this again.
On February 20th, 2007, pdxf said:
“Why do you give up some of your rights? Which ones are you specifically thinking of?”
When I wrote about giving up rights, pdxf, I was speaking from what I took to be your point of view. For example, when going into a movie theatre, a person may not yell “Fire!” unless there actually is one. While I would say that I don’t have a right of free speech in a privately owned theatre, I think you would say that I give up my right to free speech. I don’t think this is a critical difference between us, but then again, I’m not sure why you’re asking.
“I would argue that the word “wrongful†speaks to intent.”
You have certainly not persuaded me and I doubt you will be successfull with anyone else, but by all means, try… with someone else.
“Does it necessarily follow that sacrificing or limiting the rights of one for the majority involves theft, deceit, or aggression? I think yours is an unsupported assumption.”
Nothing in the pretzel logic of your reply demonstrates that it is.
“Theft: Don’t really think it’s theft…I don’t think it’s malicious or wrong (dictionary.com definition) to limit other’s right to drive under a certain speed.”
It is most certainly wrong(dictionary.com definition) to limit a person’s right to drive as fast as they want on their own property. You even said so yourself; “Should I be able to drive as fast as I want on my own private race strip…sure.” To do so against their will requires theft, deceit, or aggression.
pdxf, in keeping with my promise to Randal, I’m going to drop this discussion. I had hoped when we started that we might make some progress, but I can’t say I’m surprised we didn’t. Perhaps we’ll have better luck next time.
“pdxf, in keeping with my promise to Randal, I’m going to drop this discussion.”
Like I mentioned before, this is a foundational topic that I find fascinating to talk about and is really needed to understand the differing viewpoints. I’m not sure what you mean by “progress”, why you have to selectively use my words to change their meaning, set up strawman arguments to prove points, or attack my intelligience instead of the argument presented, but Regardless I don’t know why you feel that the discussion needs to be dropped. I think that this discussion has been quite insightful into your views and very revealing of your nature.
On February 24th, 2007, pdxf said:
“…Regardless I don’t know why you feel that the discussion needs to be dropped.”
Because you cannot correctly define theft, even with a dictionary.
Because you do not appear to know the difference between private property and a commons.
Because you have responded to my patience and courtesy with baseless accusations.
Because your replies indicate to me that you are either being deliberately obtuse in order to defend your preconceptions, or you lack the basic logic processes required for intelligent discourse.
So go ahead and take the last word. I will not respond. You will have to get your insight and revalations from someone else.