Federal Tax Reform is SEXY

[Uncle_Tricky]

*Never* Fear, MtnGoat and his asterisks *are* here. Raised by the *invisible* hand, schooled in the *art* of *Rand-Fu,* MtnGoat stands *strong* and is ever *vigilant* against *collectivism*! Stay *tuned* as he struggles *mightily* to enlighten the *heathens* of CC.com!

 

[allthumbs]

 

Bad Snafflehound

[MtnGoat]

"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.

[MtnGoat]

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.

[sk]

that is an old tierd argument that gets no one anywhere extremisum on any side does more harm than good. I think the point is to do a little. And if everyone did a little, alot would end up getting done as far as preservation goes.

 

but then we are back again at the FACT that some people are stupid and pig headed and can not be taught better ways. Is it realy so hard to recycle? to pack out your trash? to NOT LITTER? to realize that riding a motorized vehical in a designated nature presurve is probably not a great idea?

 

we are at the crux of our diffeence of oppinion, and my general philosophy of life. "personal rights only extend so far, as they do not interfer with someone elses personal rights" but then it pisses me off when people tell me I can't smoke or ask me to put out my cigatrete because it is bothering them. This universe is NOT black and white. Part of the joy of being human is recoginzing out inherant duplicity

[MtnGoat]

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.

[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.

[sk]

quote:

---

Originally posted 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.

---

you can not argue perception and perspective as fact. To me, I NEED to go to the mountains, (my counslor agrees ) you however may not need that

there is no "right" there is not "ONE WAY"

[MtnGoat]

"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 ]

[sk]

point: when you travel a short distance you have many choices as there are MANY different kinds of cars. trucks etc. you can also use a motor cycle or ride a bike or god forbid walk! when you travel far away, say Hawaii your choices become more limited. there are ONLY two ways to get there. boat or plane ( well okay you could swim ). Personaly I think it would be great if more ways could be invented, but until that time, don't you think it is wise to make the best choice for each circumstance? and conserve the resorces for where we have limited OPTIONS??? so for example, if more people drove less or drove more fule efficiant vehicals, less harm would be done to the environment, even though those people choose to fly at times.

 

your way seems to be all or none.

 

[ 11-15-2002, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: Muffy The Wanker Sprayer ]

[sexual_chocolate]

A person's cares about environmental issues doesn't preclude air travel! A rather extreme position. If these are the standards you live by, no wonder you're so wound up!

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.

I also find it perfectly reasonable to use toilet paper and write letters, while protecting old-growth forests.

I also find it perfectly reasonable to call you a silly irrevelant non-sequitir, while still adhering to Buddhist values!

 

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.

[sexual_chocolate]

BTW, I don't really think you're irrevelant. No one is irrevelant. My apologies.

[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.

[gregm]

well, i think we've gotten into some fine philosphical back and forth and big word usage, but maybe we should keep the topic focused on what this thread has drifted into: should snowmobiles be allowed in parks? we've focused on the different types of users of parks, maybe the discussion should be of the land itself. what do we want a park to be, a wilderness or a playground?

[Dru]

and should we be allowed to smoke weed in muir hut with dogs and babies present?

[slothrop]

I say wilderness. If we want a playground, we certainly have the means to build one. After all, the excitement of snowmobiling must have to do with the features of terrain, and that sort of thing is easily artificially created. Artificial transport should use artificial terrain.

 

Nice sig, gregm!

[allison]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregm:

...maybe we should keep the topic focused on what this thread has drifted into...

---

What the...?? Did you smarties finish writing the Federal Tax Code yet? No dessert until you've finished you dinner!

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

"should snowmobiles be allowed in parks?"

 

No. End of story.

 

Now you can all go home, crack open a beer, have some chips and salsa, and kick back on the couch, reading your mail and thinking about what you'll be doing this weekend.

 

Good day.

 

[ 11-15-2002, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Dr Flash Amazing ]

[RobBob]

quote:

---

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.

---

I just came back to this thread, and saw this brilliant comeback from Mr. Goat. What you are saying is exactly what I was getting at...that substance, and making your own decisions, really matters.

 

Okay, if you are worried about a few snowmobile concessionaires, then let's buy 'em out when we ban them. It'll be a Hell of a lot cheaper than the tobacco farmer buy-out that we are all paying for.

[RobBob]

A number of environmental issues are complex, with unclear science, and often filled with hypocrisy.

 

Individuals who have no clue how industry or agriculture function will pontificate about the need to control them, all the while failing to change their own behavior and unwilling to confront our planet's biggest threat: the burgeoning population in the third world.

 

Snowmobiles, on the other hand, are a no-brainer. They are bad for the environment, a scourge to those who seek a wilderness experience, and they ought to be banned from national parks and wildernesses.

 

[ 11-15-2002, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: RobBob ]

[sk]

despite the fact that you are completely impossible I think we may have reached an understanding. You are correct that I can judge no ones needs but my own. It is my oppinion that *most* environmentalists are not trying to tell people what they *need* so much as asking people to make the best choice possible for any given situation. Just because you have the right to drive your gas guzzeling 4x4 the mile down the driveway to check the mail doesn't mean that you *should*. choose responsably.

[allthumbs]

Fuck the Planet

 

The World is my Garbage Can

 

[sk]

this is me "waiting you out"

[Al_Pine]

Muffy versus MtnGoat. This should go on for a few pages. A match made in heaven.

[allthumbs]

Not worth reading though, because Mtn.Goat is so in love with himself that he can never compromise, let alone even hear another's argument. He's a spewing machine.