MtnGoat

"Couldn't let these shaky numbers pass. Budgets at all time highs? Are you nuts? Maybe if you don't adjust for inflation." You show me yours and I'll show you mine. Then we can argue about whose sources are biased. "I assume you have none in pubic school, or you're not connected to them, otherwise you might show some knowledge on the subject." You assume incorrectly. Disagreement with you does not indicate a lack of knowledge. "It takes more money in public school to address these special needs with language teachers and special education teachers that private schools don't have to worry about." Private schools offer special needs classes same as any other schools. "I have no problem with private schools mind you. Just don't come asking for a government handout to go. If you want to go, have at it." You certainly expect a handout to educate kids the way *you* want them educated, there's no reason the "handouts" shouldn't go to anyone who wants them, because your view of what public education should be is just that, your personal view, not an absolute, same as any parent choosing a private or religious school. No one should be forced to pay for state schools wether they use them or not and then also have to pay *again* to use another option. Vouchers are open to question because of the complaints about the funding of religious schools, yet what I see taught at my daughters school is merely secular religion. With "society" as god.

woefully underfunded.. budgets at all time highs and still not enough money? Seems someone trying to spend more and getting the same results maybe ought to think about *how* they are doing what they are doing.

I've got another idea, for folks who do not think their tabs cost enough. In this state, as in most others, you can choose to pay more taxes and actually just write a check direct to the state if you haven't paid enough. I suggest the difference between your old tab fee and the new one for starters, if you actually support paying more, there's no reason you can't do so right now. There's no need to wait for others, show *your* commitment to those higher fees in a way you can't blame others for. After all, if you had your way you'd already be paying, right? If you really support higher fees, you can pay them anytime you choose.

first off, you define what "solving" is, so you have a way to evaluate any plan you consider. So what's "solving"?

wow muffy, it looks like we agree on something, a winged pig just flew by my window! Well, the fuel usage deal anyway.. . as for snoozers, i think the usual suspects defending the usual socialism (we care and we know better) the same old way (when we do it it'll work, because we're smart) is about as snoozy as it gets! [ 11-16-2002, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

I'm not sure you're seeing my point. It's not that there are not different methods for each type of travel, but that the decision *itself*, is what causes any usage to begin with. Sure there are more limited choices to travel long distances. But it is the choice to travel that distance at all, the arbitrary choice to do so, that causes the usage wether you go 10 miles or 10,000. When one person chooses a non fuel efficient way to travel 100 miles for reasons sufficient to them to do so, they are making the same arbitrary choice as anyone who decides to travel 10,000 miles no matter what method they use. Both choices are personal ones to expend energy for what they view as good reason, while I agree that people should make the best choices for the situation, we cannot loose sight of the fact that we cannot really judge another's usage unless we are them. We don't know their values, their goals, their needs or views, as you pointed out before when you brought up the fact that "need" is very difficult to quantify.

"you can not argue perception and perspective as fact." that is my entire point. The arguments here are largely based on what people "need" as seen by some outside observer when this is entirely subjective. anywhere you've seen me using "need" as a fact recently, I have been screwing with folks for the very reason you point out. those against SUV's are trying to define the "needs" of people they don't even know, by standards they cannot judge. those agaisnt any snowmobile usage whatsoever also decide others don't "need" to use them, when their want IMO *is* their "need", to them. "there is no "right" there is not "ONE WAY" " precisely, which is why people own the right to decide for themselves what their needs are. I'm glad we agree on the subjectiveness of needs. [ 11-15-2002, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"But, in the meanwhile, any distance traveled involves some compromises, and since jet-travel is the only way to realistically go on any lengthy journey, I'd consider it a necessary evil, whereas an SUV is hardly necessary, usually existing only as a vanity piece." but if you do not "need" to travel in the first place, the usage of the jet is merely using resources you don't need to use. Traveling by air for pleasure is the same as driving an SUV for pleasure, a discretionary waste of fossil fuels. Why is OK for someone to waste kerosene just because they want to go somewhere, and then rag on someone else who wants to waste gas just to go somewhere closer? It's the arbitrary use of the fuel that is the issue, regardless of how far is traveled IMO.

hey gregm... "mtngoat your basic argument appears to be that environmentalism equals hypocrisy." not precisely, I save it for folks who IMO are the most judgemental about "waste" or selfishness, and then define themselves right out of that pigeonhole they apply to people they don't even know. "you support this claim by saying that anyone who rides a motor vehicle cannot honestly be an environmentalist." I say anyone who complains about selfishness and waste and then selfishly decides their selfish need to go to the mountains magically doesn't count, fits this bill, yes. It's the desire to decide what others "need", while what the observer merely wants is OK, that I find curious. "small patches of land, national parks, are set aside to be preserved in a more natural state. i think it's that simple. am i wrong?" I don't think so at all. I just disagree that total bans of snowmachines, in non wilderness areas, is necessarily at issue with preservation.

winter.. what I find most fascinating about your post is that it's aimed at me and not the folks who spend every bit as much time picking apart my points. For that reason I'm having a difficult time seeing how your post is not a politically oriented complaint. "forum to pick apart everyone's written political comments in an effort to convince everyone of his conservative viewpoints." I doubt sincerely I will convince anyone, but what I inject is some actual other viewpoints to what is otherwise a liberal echo chamber, with very few exceptions. Is that what you want, just people all agreeing with each other, which is what happens when I or the few others who do not agree don't add our two bits? "trying to convince a bunch of apolitical climbers that GW Bush is the best thing since sliced bread?!" please? Apolitical? sure doesn't look that way to me! "if you've chosen this forum as the best way of advancing your ideals and philosophies," not the best way, but one way to shake up the discussion. "Sign up with the Christian Coalition. Get active in the Libertarian Party." don't agree with the former, for one thing, as for the latter, I already am. The assumption that this is the only thing I do is woefully misguided! "then perhaps you just feel the need to be better than eveyone else on this BB." I scarcely feel that way, I leave the need to be better than everyone else to folks sure others need their directives for everyone enacted into law. A surefire example of feeling that they know better.

"It seems like a Good Thing (in a vague, unverifiable way... sorry, MtnGoat) to preserve places of beauty for public (confidential to MtnGoat: read 'selfish and coercive') use." Fair enough, I support parks myself. What I have issue with is exclusion of some demographics on the say so of only one portion of all those who share in the maintainance and protection of said lands. I don't favor snowmachines overrunning every square inch of yellowstone, but neither do I favor banning them entirely. Make some winter areas totally off limits, and some other open for some snow machine use. Heck, just allow them in areas already roaded. Go ahead and allow a phase in of 4 cycle motors, that's fine. What I am objecting to is one group demanding that the entire park be preserved to their standards, which oddly enough allows them in on their own terms, while disallowing other users to see it in different ways. I'm sure these same folks would have a lot to say if I pushed an even more purist point of view and said that if you *really* want preservation, keep *everyone* out, forever.

"A person's cares about environmental issues doesn't preclude air travel!" IMO it certainly does if they are going to use "selfishness" as a standard and *especially* when applying to SUV's, because you burn a heck of a lot of kerosene straight into the upper atmosphere on any plane ride. "A rather extreme position." I don't think so. Only one that takes *all* choices into account not just the ones some think should count while ignoring others. Even the much touted UN environmental wing is reporting that air travel is a severe problem with respect to air pollution and CO2 contributions, and if you're going to use the UN's eco wing as a standard for warming as many do, you ought to be prepared to not pick and choose between their concerns, after all they know best, right? "If these are the standards you live by, no wonder you're so wound up!" I don't live by them because I expect each person is the best judge of what they "need" in concert with what they choose to value. But if others are going to continue on about wasteful and selfish habits, it's only fair we examine wasteful and selfish for *all*. "Personally, I find it perfectly reasonable to work towards federally mandated fuel efficiency standards (thereby lowering our reliance on a non-renewable energy source) and still travel." so do i. "I also find it perfectly reasonable to use toilet paper and write letters, while protecting old-growth forests." so do i. "I also find it perfectly reasonable to call you a silly irrevelant non-sequitir, while still adhering to Buddhist values!" as is your right. "I think libertarians sometimes forget, in their zeal for individual rights, the fact that when individual rights are taken too far, our collective rights are abridged." I think some forget that "collective rights" are hardly agreed upon and highly questionable. I for one do not believe in collective rights as is often conceived. Perhaps in the fashion that each citizen has individual rights and any number of people can be viewed as a group, so yes the "group" has rights but they are only those each individual has.

If you can't see that I cannot prove something occurs, when it doesn't occur, you have serious and irresolvable issues with what consitutes proof and how it is arrived at. The person in question is entirely in control of being able to prove their commitment to the environment over selfishness with respect to be entirely able to renounce selfish trips to the mountains. [ 11-15-2002, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"I have no power to prove anything to you." You most certainly do! Your renunciation of travel for pleasure and actually doing the same would prove your commitment to non selfish use of resources. We can argue over who provide what stats for other issues, because that can be difficult to prove... but if you simply do not travel for pleasure because you are not so selfish as to use the earths resources, you can certainly and amply prove it with your actions. If you really, actually, never go to the mountains again, it will certainly be impossible for me to catch you doing so, won't it? Thus completing your proof. "Your consistent anti-community stance" I must have missed where a refusal to accept your reasons it's OK for force ones neighbors into compliance with ones own selfish goals became "anti-community". I'm all for community. I just don't define it by my ability to march around justifying my use of others lives because I "care" so much more than them. Tell us again how respecting other people and their right to live their lives and cooperate with each other by choice is "anti-community". "and ability to create facts to bolster your bullshit arguments""' you are completely in control of the ability to create the fact that you do not use resources for selfish wants. as I've said, if you *actually* do so, it's impossible for anyone to prove differently.

"My sense is deep down you know the Israelis are much closer to conforming to the ideal enshrined in the UN declaration you have posted and for some reason refuse to admit it." Such an incredibly good point, I wish i'd thought of that. We should compare the israeli constitution to the UN dec j_b holds up as a gold standard, and then compare the nations who oppose Israel to the Un standard he uses, and see how that comes out.

"As such you links do not say anything to Mtngoat's claim regarding rights. As far as religious freedom your links are basically silent." As is he, as are all apologists for Palestinian's who engage in the depradations we are discussing. J-B has yet to show us the rights guaranteed in any nations opposing Israel. He has yet to show us the existence of free and open opposition viewpoints in those nations, or even that jews have any rights at all in these neighboring nations. While I defend the bad agaisnt the worse, he defends the worst against the bad and remains entirely silent on religious freedom, rights, and protected opposition parties. Good work peter.

"I am not going to get into what Madison/Hamilton/Jefferson said" This isn't surprising, since it places some modern explanations for what the meaning of the constitution is, in the toilet in many places. From expressly saying the "general welfare" clause applies only as specifically limited by the document, to the understanding that "militia" means every adult, or "speech" means all forms of speech commercial or political or spoken or press *regardless* of media, their statements fly in the face of what some wish to turn the document into. The founders where well aware of every one of the arguments made today for expansion of the state, because believe it or not they'd seen them all before. For example, no 20th century person invented the idea that "society" demands everyone be beholden to everyone else, that existed in the wildest dreams of the humanists of the early reformation in 1200-1300. They'd already discussed these things. Pure democracy had been discussed, and various forms tried, in classical greece. this stuff is not some modern construct of oh so caring liberals empowered by a sense of superiority because only they sit at a computer keyboard while those backwards people in antiquity didn't. "but it always makes me smile to see people 'forget' about the profound changes that have affected human societies since the industrial revolution." it always makes me smile to see people think that technological changes mean even the slightest change in human nature. The eternal conceit of the people living in an eternal and advancing ephemeral "now", to think they are somehow superior to those in the past because *they* are the modern and enlightened ones is really something. People in 200 BC figured they were the modern ones, people in 1000 and 1836 and 1937 figured that too. Even the most casual reading of history from ancient works to the most modern show *exactly* the same human traits at work. Lust, love, greed, altruism, crime, benevolence, war, peace, the whole works, just the same the entire time, regardless of the tools or toys of the age which affect the periphery but never change the feelings people feel or the deep reasons for their actions. Nobody is forgetting anything about technological changes, but some people are apparently forgetting that wether we hold car keys or the reigns of a horse, human emotions and drives remain the same. "It's a little like referring to plato's works as the ultimate relevant document because he knew human nature." Which made his works some of the ulitimate relevant documents. Dissing ideas because of their age instead of their content, while ignoring that human nature was the same as it is now, is the ultimate in the arrogance of seeing only the present as relevant. Where plato related his ideas to the technology of his age, a case can be made for modern differences with his ideas. Where they concern human nature, they remain applicable. "Perhaps you should instead look at politicians of that period as having had to pick up the pieces left by laissez-faire economics." Or we could look at them at having to pick up the pieces of only partial understanding of stock markets in an industrial age combined with crappy trading practices and insupportable margin trading laws.

"MtnGoat is right the problem would be that it would cost him a little." no, the problem is it would cost customers and owners and others something and this doesn't appear to be a consideration. They get to pay the costs of this "public good" while having their right to use public facilities removed. "Going anti-environmental cost him nothing because everyone knows he is antienvironmental, and he still got enough votes." Not following every single tenet of radical enviros scarecly means one is antienvironmental. "People like you perhaps are put off by his trash-the-environment stance, but not enough to actually take a stand." I'm put off by your trash the environment actions, and your refusal to actually live up to your own standards. You don't need to visit mountains or travel, it's all a selfish desire you can live without, enabled by your trashing of the environment with mines, wells, farms, etc. "So either suck it up and stop whining about the guy you voted for, or do something about it." Either suck it up and *prove* your intense commitment to not destorying the environment, or get reasonable about the fact that everyone uses reasources and not everyone need to comply with your views on how it's acceptable to do so.

"That would mean only the hard-working people who earned their way would get ahead!" If we intend to eliminate inheritances, it should apply to *everyone*, not just one demographic or another.

"I think on that issue, Bush should have pushed for common sense, rather than based it on lobbyists OR demographics." Common sense tells us no snowmobiles should be allowed in a park the public pays for? and we should ignore demographics? For someone constantly telling us about the value of democracy, ignoring demographics doesn't seem like a real supportable tack to take. Further, there are plenty of lobbyists pushing for exclusion of snowmobiles so it appears what is desired is not ignoring lobbyists, just listening to the ones some parties support. [ 11-15-2002, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"If Bush had taken a stance against snowmobiles in the parks, he would have appeared slightly more thoughtful to us, and it would have cost him relatively little." That's the problem, it would cost him little, and you little, and everyone who owns a snowmobile buisness there their buisness, and their customers the opportunity to take a snowmobile trip into the park. If all it takes to "appear" thoughtful is to agree with someone else stance regardless of the reasons they don't agree to begin with, it's not really worth doing IMO. Maybe *all* sides should "appear" thoughtful by taking into account the fact that substance actually matters on issues.

"Ah yes the simplistic bullshit counterpunch" More like the realistic question, called bullshit by those who don't like direct, simple questions. Not everything is exceedingly complex and difficult in spite of it being popular to construe it as so. When did it become assumed the huddled masses come here to obtain resources worked for by other people?

"His threat worked and he was able to bastardize the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause." Madison himself made it clear the "general welfare" clause was to be taken *only* in the context of the strict limits placed upon the state by the constitution and was well aware that if it were taken otherwise, anything at all could be justified. For all the justifications that somehow people are different or more modern now, they clearly saw *exactly* how people operate and this has never changed, which is why the constitution is such an impressive document.

In any case, the examples of the human rights declaration provided does in fact show the socialist content of same, which in fact I alluded to in the first place. Socialism assumes individuals owe their allegiance to the state instead of themselves, assumes their labor belongs to society instead of themselves, that rights are granted and are *positive* rights (rights gained by forcing action from others), instead of classically liberal *negative* rights (rights are inherent and only need non action from others to be observed), state control of private enterprise and peaceful individual choices, etc, each element of which is clearly visible in this declaration. Support socialism if you wish, don't try and claim socialism isn't socialism!

"8-12 y.o. working children who earn a fraction of what adults make is no doubt an expression of self determination" No, it is not, as citizens below the legal age for full self determination they are not able to properly enter into contracts with full knowledge and consent, even if they give it. This of course is in view of a probable argument concerning long hours and arduous conditions. If they are doing light work and earning a fraction of what adults make, that may be OK. I don't expect part time labor for a few hours a day, such a paper route or cutting a lawn, or even picking berries or whatever light piecework can be found, should be frowned upon. [ 11-14-2002, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]