Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdcad.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!amdcad!phil From: phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: PISSED OFF Message-ID: <560@amdcad.UUCP> Date: Sat, 19-Jan-85 05:00:03 EST Article-I.D.: amdcad.560 Posted: Sat Jan 19 05:00:03 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 19-Jan-85 21:11:28 EST References: <1899@inmet.UUCP> Organization: AMDCAD, Sunnyvale, CA Lines: 69 > Once upon a time there were private roads. One net-user advanced > the notion that the private roads were so expensive that farmers > appealed to the State to nationalize the road system. You > have no idea how happy I am to subsidize farmers and > truckers by money extracted from me by force. > > The railroads were built by private industry cooperating with (not > directed by) government. Odd that government should be in the > construction business, don't you think? How are you going to build highways and railroads without the power of eminent domain? Seems to me the railroad companies got a lot of help from the government in condemning land for right of ways. I don't understand how paying for roads with gasoline taxes is unfair. Here in California, we believe that the overhead in charging tolls for highways (make everyone stop, pay a coolie to take your quarter) is unacceptably high. Yet this is what you must have to operate private roads. Does the government belong in the construction business? Caltrans (dept of transportation) seems to be doing an adequate job, even though years of Gov Brown crippled them. We have some nice roads, come check out Interstate 280 sometime. I have heard that perhaps the government in Mass is more corrupt than most, but that does not mean to me that all government is bad, just that Mass has a problem. > Don't even ask me about building code regulations. Why not, do you think they (maybe public health regulations too) are unnecessary? I think you're a bit naive if so. By the way, how about the FCC? Shouldn't we abolish that too? Why should we hamstring all the would-be broadcasters? Just let anyone use any frequency, any power, and any equipment they desire. If they aren't putting out a quality product, why people will stop listening to them. Oh, your (private) police can't hear themselves anymore? Too bad, but we must make some sacrifices to freedom. > >running > >parks and recreation departments, > > Yes, I think it's perfectly okay to tell taxpayers that they will > be put in jail if they do not pay for parks and recreation departments. > After all, they are life and death issues, and it's morally > justified to steal from citizens to construct bridle paths. You seem to think parks are luxuries or that someone will provide them if the government doesn't. If you're rich enough to have a car you can drive away from the concrete. Not everyone can afford to do that. > 4. Make it clear that PG&E and all the others will be liable > for any damages they cause. I think you'll need a (shudder) government agency to enforce this. And don't forget, you probably want to regulate the air quality coming out of a coal fired plant and such things. Could this be an EPA? > defense back in the days of fiefdoms, too, so going back to the > days of knighthood wouldn't change this aspect of things much. > (The weaponry would be safer to leave around children). Yeah, until some fiefdom decides to fund the equivalent of DARPA and blows you away with the results. -- "Nations go to war over women like you, it's just a form of appreciation..." Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA