The Goat Pen

Also, where the hell is that (#1)? The Netherlands?

aTm wrote:Also, where the hell is that (#1)? The Netherlands?

Well, it doesn't really matter where #1 and #2 are. What matters is that you understand the point that I am making. And if they are both Hell to you, which is the 9th plane if Hell and which is the 1st?

Also, your idea that pride in ownership and a bunch of personal bullshit is what gets you #1 is a joke.

#1's are produced through a combination of excess land, central planning, and restrictions of property owner rights. A regular utopia, eh comrade?

aTm wrote:Also, your idea that pride in ownership and a bunch of personal bullshit is what gets you #1 is a joke.

#1's are produced through a combination of excess land, central planning, and restrictions of property owner rights. A regular utopia, eh comrade?

The land is not in excess. If it were, people would have more than the quarter acre lots their houses are sitting. Central planning was done by the private sector, not government, so it wasn't central planning at all. All we had is some wealthy land developer who bought all the land, subdivided it as he saw fit with roads and infrastructure, and laid the whole thing out in a manner that would enable him to sell all that land for the highest profit possible. The restrictions on the property rights are most likely an HOA (self-imposed by the community.) If you don't like it (you really want to build a barn, have an RV on your lot, and hang your clothes outside on a clothes line) then this community is not for you. Move to #2 and take your life in your own hands.

I have my doubts that the picture you chose is even in this country, so I'm not sure that the style of land development you describe was used at all.

aTm wrote:I have my doubts that the picture you chose is even in this country, so I'm not sure that the style of land development you describe was used at all.

You want me to find a picture of a suburb in Greenich CT? Toughchester NY? Scottsdale AZ? Rochester Michigan? San Jose CA? Orlando Florida? Wakefield Massachusetts? Houston TX? Do you think the image is what matters or the point I was making?

You can try to be Libertarian locally, but for the people in Community #2, Libertarianism does nothing for them as they are not (nor will they ever be) self-sufficent. The Community #2 exists simply because there are enough Community #1s around (pay taxes but do not consume government services) to allow to remain in existance. Now Community #2 should NOT exist in the form that it is in, but this is what you get from LBJ and the expansion of the welfare state (lifelong government dependancy, multi-generational welfare, and an absence of marriage.) Read that amazing book American Dream which follows the lives of three women living in welfare, not any one of them have even been to a wedding!

Public housing has been aroud for centuries. But public housing did not become ghetto-ized and ruined until the 1960s when single moms were allowed to live there. ALl the way up through the 1950s, public housing was only a temporary weigh-station on the way to self-sufficentcy and home ownership, not a perminant way of life. And unfortunately, people in Civics classes are too politically correct to mention this to their students for fear of being sued for telling the truth about it.

" Unfortunately, this is entirely at odds with the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration (that I'm guessing, you voted for...)"

Unfortunately, it's also entirely at odds with the Republican party as well, which I'm sure you voted for. Given an option b/w two erroneous philosophies (that actually amount to the same thing) of the economic role of the federal government and federal power in general, which both parties share exactly equally, I choose to go with the party that I see as being more indulgent of civil and personal liberties, which I feel the democratic party is. It's really not that difficult once you realize that there's not a nickel's worth of difference b/w the two parties when it comes to their core, unshakable and unalterable belief in the role, size and scope of federal claims and powers. Of course if you buy into the false belief that the repubs are really the "conservative" party who really believe in smaller federal government, then you will vote based on a lie, which, from what I can tell, is what most republicans do. But you already know this, even if you are loathe to admit it on these boards. Or maybe you really do believe it. Either way, it's not my problem...

"The land is not in excess. If it were, people would have more than the quarter acre lots their houses are sitting."

You mean as opposed to the excess land in #2, where they live in 600 sq. ft. boxes piled on top of each other?

all those houses in #1 belong to Military contractors

" All we had is some wealthy land developer who bought all the land, subdivided it as he saw fit with roads and infrastructure, and laid the whole thing out in a manner that would enable him to sell all that land for the highest profit possible."

Again, as opposed to #2, where poor people just built up 30 story apartments with their bare hands? LMAO, #2 is just as much a product of some wealthy land developer as #1, except he maximized his profits even more than the guy in #1 by squeezing in several thousand people per city block rather than 50 or 60 homes in a couple of square miles of land...

hedge wrote:" Unfortunately, this is entirely at odds with the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration (that I'm guessing, you voted for...)"

Unfortunately, it's also entirely at odds with the Republican party as well, which I'm sure you voted for. Given an option b/w two erroneous philosophies (that actually amount to the same thing) of the economic role of the federal government and federal power in general, which both parties share exactly equally, I choose to go with the party that I see as being more indulgent of civil and personal liberties, which I feel the democratic party is. It's really not that difficult once you realize that there's not a nickel's worth of difference b/w the two parties when it comes to their core, unshakable and unalterable belief in the role, size and scope of federal claims and powers. Of course if you buy into the false belief that the repubs are really the "conservative" party who really believe in smaller federal government, then you will vote based on a lie, which, from what I can tell, is what most republicans do. But you already know this, even if you are loathe to admit it on these boards. Or maybe you really do believe it. Either way, it's not my problem...

It is our problem. It is ALL our problem if civilization goes away the way it currently is.

Here is my problem with Libertarianism: Libertarianism is Amoral. It is. And what are the roots of morality? Morals are created as to create boundries such that to prevent women from being ruined. And Libertarianism does not address that, not one bit. And for someone who understands the differences between men and women (myself) those morals matter.

Hedge, our Constitution is less than the length of an operator's manual for a Honda Accord. There isn't much in there. And that only works properly for a moral society. (Our founders believed that people were "moral" so they speifically did not address a whole bunch of stuff.) Our Constitution doesn't function very well outside the scope of morality. So (from a purely Libertarian perspective, where there isn't any shame in attempting to "game the system") you aren't going to sell yourself very well to the majority of Americans who know the difference between right and wrong and know that those differences matter. What separates Democrats from Republicans is how they deal with right vs wrong....

...and that doesn't work at all at the local level, not when you have Community #1 and Community #2 less than 5 miles apart.

I spent many years developing Multi-Family Section 8/Tax credit properties. Developed neighborhoods too. Good $ in that stuff.

"Morals are created as to create boundries such that to prevent women from being ruined"

[youtube]SQqB6c8r72U[/youtube]

the issue isn't a pride of ownership problem, the issue is an opportunity problem.

The children in #2 have a monumental hurdle ahead of them to get into #1, whereas the kids of #1 will mostly likely end up living in an area similar to #1 as adults.

When less than 10% of your population has a realistic chance to end up in neighborhood #1 and 40% of your population could end up in #2, you have an opportunity problem.

innocentbystander wrote:

hedge wrote:" Unfortunately, this is entirely at odds with the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration (that I'm guessing, you voted for...)"

Unfortunately, it's also entirely at odds with the Republican party as well, which I'm sure you voted for. Given an option b/w two erroneous philosophies (that actually amount to the same thing) of the economic role of the federal government and federal power in general, which both parties share exactly equally, I choose to go with the party that I see as being more indulgent of civil and personal liberties, which I feel the democratic party is. It's really not that difficult once you realize that there's not a nickel's worth of difference b/w the two parties when it comes to their core, unshakable and unalterable belief in the role, size and scope of federal claims and powers. Of course if you buy into the false belief that the repubs are really the "conservative" party who really believe in smaller federal government, then you will vote based on a lie, which, from what I can tell, is what most republicans do. But you already know this, even if you are loathe to admit it on these boards. Or maybe you really do believe it. Either way, it's not my problem...

It is our problem. It is ALL our problem if civilization goes away the way it currently is.

Here is my problem with Libertarianism: Libertarianism is Amoral. It is. And what are the roots of morality? Morals are created as to create boundries such that to prevent women from being ruined. And Libertarianism does not address that, not one bit. And for someone who understands the differences between men and women (myself) those morals matter.

Hedge, our Constitution is less than the length of an operator's manual for a Honda Accord. There isn't much in there. And that only works properly for a moral society. (Our founders believed that people were "moral" so they speifically did not address a whole bunch of stuff.) Our Constitution doesn't function very well outside the scope of morality. So (from a purely Libertarian perspective, where there isn't any shame in attempting to "game the system") you aren't going to sell yourself very well to the majority of Americans who know the difference between right and wrong and know that those differences matter. What separates Democrats from Republicans is how they deal with right vs wrong....

...and that doesn't work at all at the local level, not when you have Community #1 and Community #2 less than 5 miles apart.

oh horseshit - Libertarians aren't against morality, they are against fuckheads who think they know whats best of every man legislating morality at the federal level. If a local community wants to ban abortion and be for gay marriage, a libertarian may be for or against it, but they have no problem with the community deciding.

That, in a nutshell, is why IB doesn't like libertarianism. It takes away his power to tell other people how to live and behave. And he really does think that that is an appropriate (indeed, primary) task of government. Fortunately, his is a dying breed. But it is kinda fun to watch them die their slow, painful death...

Jungle Rat wrote:I spent many years developing Multi-Family Section 8/Tax credit properties. Developed neighborhoods too. Good $ in that stuff.

Did you spend many years living in Multi-Family Section 8/Tax credit properties? Did you own them, not live near them, because you were an absentee landlord? There is not much good living in that lifestyle.

Section-8 damns everything it touches. And a moral person must work very hard to un-damn it. I'll give you a personal example: my first home I bought at age 25. It was just some shit-ball, two-bedroom, 1.5 bath, townhome in Dedham Massachusetts. It was 24 years old when I bought it. And I paid very little money for it (put 30% down on a 15 year mortgage, very affordable.) I was thrilled, I entered the world of homeownership and I moved my single-ass in to my new home. And then reality hit.

It turns out the people who sold that place to me were renting it out as Section-8 through the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The single-mom the state moved in to my home (before I bought it) had 3 kids from 3 different dads, she prostituted herself for income, and my neighbors would tell me that they would call the police paid every couple of weeks when one of her "Johns" became too violent and loud. I actually met this woman after I moved in as she continued to drop her kids off with a neighbor in the townhome next to me so she could go "out" and do "whatever." Well, the damage she did with her reputation, I had to undo all of that. I couldn't get the cable company to turn on cable without pre-paying two months of service because my condo unit was blacklisted for lack of payment. Samething with my telephone, prepay two months to unblacklist. I couldn't get Columbia House to deliever to my address because she refused to pay and they were convinced she still lived there. And I had almost 3 months of strange men knocking on my door at weird hours of the night before they all realized that she didn't live there anymore.

That is your Section-8.

I mean I was lucky. I bought low and sold high, but I had to live in that pit for over 4 years to undo all the damage that she (and the absentee landlords) wrought. But this is the society we create for ourselves by enabling single parents to have subsidized or free housing "somewhere." We ghetto-ize cheap housing to the point of unlivability. And this is a relatively new circumstance as those people of ill repute, they were not ones to linger at any one spot for too long prior to a time where government would pay for it.

Sucks to be you. Next time do better research ya dumbass.

"I couldn't get Columbia House to deliever to my address"

Are you referring to the "buy 12 albums for 1 cent" Columbia House? If so, I am LMAO. Not b/c there is anything wrong with Columbia House. In fact, I don't even know why I'm LMAO if that is the Columbia House you are talking about. But somehow the idea of you waiting eagerly for your albums from Pablo Cruise and England Dan & John Ford Coley to arrive is hilarious...

I'm staying out of this as best as I can, but Section 8 is not all filled with hoes and destitution. Planned communities aren't filled with good, moral, upstanding citizens.

Using blanket statements or specific anectdotal examples extrapolated across a larger topic as a staple of your argument is a surefire way for it to be easily deconstructed down to bullshit.

Sorry about your Columbia House, though. That sucks.